Are most white people in America today racist?

[727Goon]

I'm honestly not sure here, are there any polls or anything talking about what percent of white people are racist in America?

[Nolan]

I doubt it.

[Weezer]

Please don't stereotype.

Granted, there are racist white people, but I wouldn't say most. Some are just confused.

[727Goon]

I'm not stereotyping, at least in my area white people seem to be disproportionately racist, and it would make sense that more white people would be racist in a culture where white supremacy rules. I'm just wondering if there are any statistics or whatever.

[Volcanicity]

They are mostly misguided not inherently racist.Most have probably been brain-washed by their families and dont know any better.

[Decommissioner]

I want to say yes, but I may be biased due to the area I live. Most white people around me are, if not out right racist, racist without knowing it..or shall I say misguided.

[Hiratsuka]

Most white Americans don't think people of other colors are inferior to them, no.

Prejudiced? Everyone is.

[Raúl Duke]

my area Well...you're in Florida.

Although to be honest, I never met very outwardly racist younger people in Ft Myers.
However, I think there may be a lot of prejudice towards Hispanics than towards African-Americans in the area.

The most racist man I know is my father's boss, from Georgia.

[GX.]

Yes I think so, to an extent. To what extent, I'm not sure I want to know. American society cloaks a lot of horrible prejudices.

[mollymae]

Racist? No. Racially ignorant? Probably.

[Blackscare]

I think racism itself is something that evolves over time. Today's racism in most cases looks nothing like your grandfather's racism.

That said, I think not.

[Jimmie Higgins]

No most white people are not racists. More white people currently support Obama than are currently dedicated racists. More white people support immigrations or LGBT rights than are total anti-latino or anti-gay bigots.

That being said, racist ideas are much more widespread than in the recent past in general. Anti-arab and anti (latino) immigration arguments and fear-mongering and scape-goating from the elites have definitely added to this. The fact that there has been a retreat on anti-racist organizing and politics also means that old racist ideas can come back into favor in a "color-blind" version. Even Obama gives speeches where he blames black poverty and under-representation in universities on... BLACK PEOPLE! He argues a right-wing argument from the 1990s that black inequality is because black people don't care enough about their kids or education and would rather watch Sports Center... i.e. "black people are poor because they are lazy"?!:mad:

[IllicitPopsicle]

I want to say yes, but I may be biased due to the area I live. Most white people around me are, if not out right racist, racist without knowing it..or shall I say misguided.

Shit, you're from Oklahoma too?

[counterblast]

All white people in America are racist, if only for the fact that their livelihoods are built on the genocide and robbery of Native peoples.

[28350]

Just as a side note, is it racist to call a group of people racist or prejudiced in some way?

My friend and I were talking, and he said something along the lines of black people of a certain area being homophobic. Is that racism?

[727Goon]

All white people in America are racist, if only for the fact that their livelihoods are built on the genocide and robbery of Native peoples.

I dont know about that, I don't think its right to blame people for shit their ancestors did. Obviously American culture does promote at least a subtle white supremacy but blaming every white person for it is wrongheaded as fuck.

[727Goon]

Just as a side note, is it racist to call a group of people racist or prejudiced in some way?

My friend and I were talking, and he said something along the lines of black people of a certain area being homophobic. Is that racism?


It could be, while it is true that the black community does need to work on homophobic attitudes in our culture, it's not like there arent a shit ton of homophobic white folks. So yeah, if its a bunch of privileged white boy "revolutionaries" talking about the big bad homophobic coloreds, it's probably racist.

[Klaatu]

Racism depends on the time and place. For example, while there was (or is) racial prejudice in the American South, there was also plenty
of racial prejudice in California, against Asians, in the 19th century.

And now in the 21st century, there seems to be a growing racial prejudice against people of middle-eastern descent.

[progressive_lefty]

I think racism itself is something that evolves over time. Today's racism in most cases looks nothing like your grandfather's racism.

That said, I think not.

I think this is true. No one's immune from racism, I hate racism, but that doesn't mean I'm perfect, or that their hasn't been moments where I've had to take a step back and re-consider an irrational thought.

I think Spike Lee's films are good at dealing with this subject, Bamboozled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboozled)(available on youtube) dealt very well with the whole political correctness debate. It was a good film in opposition to those who whine and complain about political correctness, and how they cant say 'nigger' or 'gook'.

[TheUSSocialist]

I don't believe they(we) are "racist", as much as we are fallling back on tendencies that were learned socially, for whatever ignorant reason. And it is the same for blacks as well. I hear it on both sides quite often. People just need to be enlightened about class struggle, and that we are in this together as the same class of people.

[Kayser_Soso]

I find that many racist memes have become so entrenched in US society that even minorities believe some of them, even when they are about their own specific group. Case and point, Bill Cosby.

[bricolage]

Considering half the people here think it's racist to not support Chavez or Nepalese Maoists or Hamas or a whole load of other groups operating in the Global South I'd say in terms of that then yeah most Americans are racist...

More serious point; Probably most people have some sort of tacit racist beliefs or prejudices but I'd say the days of 'fuck the blacks' as a majority position are over, at least I hope so.

[Dimentio]

All white people in America are racist, if only for the fact that their livelihoods are built on the genocide and robbery of Native peoples.

You will be very popular by saying this.

[Dimentio]

Besides, most nations are founded on exactly the very same foundations as America. Just look at Britain for example.

Proto-Britons were wiped out by Celts.

Celts were wiped out by Romans.

Romano-celts were wiped out by Anglo-saxons.

Anglo-saxons were wiped out by Normans.

[Hiero]

Besides, most nations are founded on exactly the very same foundations as America. Just look at Britain for example.

Proto-Britons were wiped out by Celts.

Celts were wiped out by Romans.

Romano-celts were wiped out by Anglo-saxons.

Anglo-saxons were wiped out by Normans.

They are not modern examples. America was founding on a colonialism/settler colonialism that is not comparable to ancient standards.

But what was your point? How does this relate to the question?

[RED DAVE]

Yes, definitely. The changes wrought by the civil rights movement did not, in the end affect the economic lives of most black people.

White people, in general, do not spend a lot of time worrying about this.

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

They are not modern examples. America was founding on a colonialism/settler colonialism that is not comparable to ancient standards.

But what was your point? How does this relate to the question?

How is it not comparable?

Was it more cruel? Is it because it is more recently?

I would say it is relevant to focus on not allowing such things to happen in the future, and yes the United States should be disbanded, but so should all 195 other states on the planet as well.

The largest indignation over western injustice is actually very much confounded to academic spotlights in the west, while people in the third world in general tend to view the colonialism epoch as just another period of foreign-dominated government and the westerners as tyrants like any other.

This exceptionalism is actually bordering some sort of perverse racism, that westerners somehow need to be judged according to higher criterias than non-western peoples.

Of course, that isn't the reason. We both know that anti-imperialism and gramscism are working by putting guilt on the shoulders of western nations to prevent future imperialist assaults from happening and to strengthen anti-imperialist movements in the Third World, as well as demoralising and reducing patriotism in the home front and thus hopefully demolish the cordiality between the ruling class and the people in western nations. Of course that is not something which is talked about loud.

I happen to disagree with that tactic, not out of some kind of western entitlement, but because those tactics are alienating the radical left from the working class in western countries and is strengthening xenophobia and racism amongst a working class which is feeling abandoned by the left.

Such statements which Counterblast for example is uttering would hardly make any improvement on the relations with the domestic working class and would only make her come off as elitist and condescending, since most of the American working class are celebrating the 4th of July and Thanksgiving.

Leftists should try to co-opt traditions like those, not say "all our traditions are racist and our entire history is racist". That is just defeatist and is to capitulate to reality as it has been formed. No matter if Counterblast is factually correct, it is still true that all countries have been formed out of a series of wars and migrations - I don't think there is any country on the planet governed by the original inhabitants today, perhaps maybe some Pacific island somewhere.

To say that "All Americans are racists"/"All Swedes are racists""/"All Italians are racists" is to basically say that the working class is stupid because it isn't supporting the ideals of academic revolutionary leftists.

Unconditional anti-imperialism or gramscism of that kind which is working on the demonising the country where you are working will only serve to marginalise a political movement, not elevate it. No matter if it is the truth, its still a fucking stupid thing to say it.

[Dimentio]

Yes, definitely. The changes wrought by the civil rights movement did not, in the end affect the economic lives of most black people.

White people, in general, do not spend a lot of time worrying about this.

RED DAVE

That could be attributed to other factors as well. White middle class people are in general not worried about poor white people either. They are just "white trash" or "rednecks".

The black middle class also is espousing a sneering, condescending behaviour against poor inner city blacks, for example claiming that they are lazy.

This behaviour could be attributed to racism, but would more conveniently fall under the classist spectrum.

[RED DAVE]

That could be attributed to other factors as well. White middle class people are in general not worried about poor white people either. They are just "white trash" or "rednecks".True but there is a special "flavor" to neglect of the condition of blacks. It's called racism.


he black middle class also is espousing a sneering, condescending behaviour against poor inner city blacks, for example claiming that they are lazy.This is true of sections of the black petit-bourgeoisie, which is what can be expected from them. Still and all, most members of the black middle-class have family in the working class and in the lumpen proletariat, which makes their behavior problematical and desperate.


This behaviour could be attributed to racism, but would more conveniently fall under the classist spectrum.No, Comrade. There is an irreducible element of oppression in the US which cannot quite be classified under classism. It is the legacy of four hundred years of racial oppression. It's racism.

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

I am in agreement with that.

What my impression is, after seeing how Republicans and white fascists argument amongst themselves, is that the main reason for their anger against the idea of a welfare state is a fear that their "hard earned money" would go to the African American community.

Some economic historians claim that the political trend towards the right in the USA started with the breakthrough of the civil rights movement. Before that, there had been lots of socialists and communists all over rural America, but after that a large part of the rural and urban working people moved over to the right due to the fear of competition from minorities.

In short, blacks are not primarily blamed for being poor, but for being seen as welfare recipients.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Re: does the fact that US initial wealth and power and surplus derives from from slavery and a genocide of native people mean that all white people in the US are racists by default?


Besides, most nations are founded on exactly the very same foundations as America. Just look at Britain for example.

Proto-Britons were wiped out by Celts.

Celts were wiped out by Romans.

Romano-celts were wiped out by Anglo-saxons.

Anglo-saxons were wiped out by Normans.

Not only that, but capitalism owes all its wealth to primitive accumulation so this means that all modern industry and capital is built on and from the wealth created by the slave trade, the pillaging of the new world, India, China and Africa, the enclosure of common land and the forced removal of the peasantry, and so on.

If the Native Americans in the US south had not been displaced, then agriculture could not have developed which then lead to plantations ( so add slavery to the mix too) and so on that fueled trade in the north which then allowed investment into manufacturing which lead to industrialization.

So, to me, there is no question that the wealth and power of the US specifically, and the capitalist powers in general, comes from slavery, genocide, forced migration... all of which needed an ideological justification: racism. In other words, it's ok to enslave or murder people because they are worthless anyway.

So while racism is in the very foundations of this country and this system, it does not mean that all white Americans are racist just by living here. That would imply that all regular white people benefit from this social arrangement of capitalism, and since we know that workers do not benefit from the power of the capitalists, but are actually hurt by it, white workers are not automatically racist just for living under a system founded with racism.

I think during the early years of the US, it could be argued that in a settler-state sense, white settlers were racists in that they benefited from and often petitioned the US governmnet for the removal of native people. I don't think this argument can be made any more because the primary "reward" or payment in our system is no longer free or cheap (stolen land) handed out by the governmnet (in exchange for indentured servitude and labor), but wage-slavery.

[Kayser_Soso]

Besides, most nations are founded on exactly the very same foundations as America. Just look at Britain for example.

Proto-Britons were wiped out by Celts.

Celts were wiped out by Romans.

Romano-celts were wiped out by Anglo-saxons.

Anglo-saxons were wiped out by Normans.

LOL WUT? The Normans didn't "wipe" out the Anglo-Saxons, nor did the Romans wipe out the Celts. If they did, just who the hell are the Irish, Scots, and Welsh? Subjugation is not the same as wiping out.

[jake williams]

All white people in America are racist, if only for the fact that their livelihoods are built on the genocide and robbery of Native peoples.
Look, any word can mean anything, so if you want to say that being a "racist" means you own a lime green Ford Escort, you can use the word that way. But virtually everyone understands the term "racist" to refer to, at the minimum, an actual set of beliefs and/or practices, something which historical practices cannot fall under. This is not to say that the establishment of settler colonial societies in Canada, the United States and Australia wasn't founded upon the theft of land of native people and in many cases outright genocide - the point is that this much does not, on its own, constitute racism on the part of the original settlers' descendants (nor does it, necessarily, constitute racism on the part of subsequent immigrants, European or not).

I think what it makes sense to talk about is what beliefs people today actually have, and what things they actually do or don't do which constitute racism. Frankly there are people who more or less want to imply that Europeans are racist by definition, and I think some who want to imply that all people are racist by definition. I think this makes the word meaningless and useless and utterly prevents us from fighting racism, which incorporates practices and social structures which occur and exist now and need to be stopped. Let's take settler colonialism. The fact is that there is still a process of land theft and ethnic cleansing, in a number of ways, and that's not okay. We can fight to change it in a lot of cases, so for example all over Canada there are attempts by the state and by private land developers to break up Native reserves, what little land hasn't been already settled. This is happening immediately across the river from Montreal, and it's happening a couple hours to the southeast from where I'm presently typing. It can actually be stopped. The historical acts of conquest of North America can be stopped no more than the Holocaust, or Genghis Khan.

It is a historical fact that many European settlers, although to a qualitatively different extent the settler ruling class, passed on wealth and power to their descendants. But this wealth doesn't somehow make those descendants necessarily racist.

I think in terms of the much more common meaning of the question originally asked - that is to say, are most white Americans actually of the belief that different racial groups are of distinct and hierarchically organized characterstics, presumably with white people at the top - the answer is much more mixed. I think, unfortunately, that the simplest answer is that there is a lot of cognitive dissonance going on. I think on the one hand, even people who consider themselves "conservative" or "right wing" are still basically good liberals and believe that everyone is equal with an equal chance of succeeding in our free society. I think that for many people at the same time, however, they readily accept that the colonization of the Americas was good and that Europeans had an entitlement to the land that native peoples did not; I think most people in North America readily accept that Latin American people are less acceptable immigrants into the United States or Canada; I think that many people assume that the wealth disparity between, for example, white and black people is not the consequence of historical injustice, primitive capital accumulation and the entrenchment of a racialized ruling class through wealth inheritance, and extant systemic discrimination, but must (implicitly) be the consequence of different behaviours and cultures. I think that these beliefs do constitute racist beliefs, almost without question, but I think the "stereotypical" view of a white southern drawl racist is much less common or acceptable in American society, even in Texas or Kansas (not to say they don't still exist).

[Salmonella]

If we are talking about the USA. Yes.

[jake williams]

LOL WUT? The Normans didn't "wipe" out the Anglo-Saxons, nor did the Romans wipe out the Celts. If they did, just who the hell are the Irish, Scots, and Welsh? Subjugation is not the same as wiping out.
In Canada native people make up somewhere in the vicinity of 5% of the population. No genocide in history that I know of, with the exception of Tasmania, was total.

To give a slightly more modern example - people living in Israeli settlements in the West Bank probably are virtually all fanatical racists, as is pretty obvious to anyone who knows anything about Israeli society. But it's utter lunacy to suggest that a Jewish kid born in Tel Aviv is intrinsically racist whereas one born in, I don't know, the Ukraine is not.

[Manifesto]

In Michigan, hell yes they are. Many white people here are racist against black people because they blame them for anything bad.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Im not living in America, so i cant say very much, but my picture that i have is that in the US people are allways talking about races/colors/ethnicities. The idea og that you allways must divide and chategorize people is something that i think is a very deaply rooted part in american mentality, like the whole question "Are most white people racist?".

[GPDP]

I don't think most white people are racist, at least not explicitly. I would even argue there's not even that many "in the closet" racists either, by which I mean they are racist but do not outwardly express that racism or try to codify racist rhetoric, as opposed to out-and-out unapologetic racists.

However, what there IS a lot of among white people is a much more subconscious racism that denies the label vehemently. This is a racism that in one sense feels guilty about the racial discrimination of the past and would like to say it wants to address it, but at once retains many of the racial anxieties of back then.

Writer Paul Street talks a lot about such white anxiety, specifically in the context of Obama's campaign. In his view, those whites who voted for him did so out of a sense of duty to show that they were beyond racism and were not afraid to vote for a black candidate, yet at the same time it must be understood that Obama worked hard to portray himself in such a way so as to appear as non-threatening (read: black) as possible. That is, yes, he is black, but not Jesse Jackson black, meaning there was to be absolutely no mention of addressing past injustices toward blacks, nor would he use rhetoric employed by black civil rights leaders.

Obama framed himself in such a way because he understood the underlying anxieties still present: many white people want to believe racism is a thing of the past, and in fact much rhetoric is employed to sweep it under the carpet, completely ignoring present injustices. Voting for Obama accomplished this for many whites. Now they can say racism is no longer a barrier, while doing nothing to really address current problems. Now, if blacks underperform, it's a cultural thing and past and present white privilege has nothing to do with it.

That's not to say all white people possess these anxieties, of course. What I'm saying is, in a sense, there is still a very subtle underlying layer of racism among many whites, yet they will vehemently deny it. I think their almost willful ignorance as to the present realities of racial privilege says otherwise, however.

[Dimentio]

LOL WUT? The Normans didn't "wipe" out the Anglo-Saxons, nor did the Romans wipe out the Celts. If they did, just who the hell are the Irish, Scots, and Welsh? Subjugation is not the same as wiping out.

My fault to simplify it. I mean that their social systems and governments were wiped out, and that their population were subjected to discrimination and oppression by a largely alien ruling class.

[Kayser_Soso]

It is important to note the difference between the myriad of ideas which can be construed as racist, which may be held by people of many different groups in America, and racism which has the ability to do great harm, that is those ideas held by those in power(who are still, mostly white). The former ideas may be expressed openly, all the time, by anyone. The latter is often subtle and unnoticed, though it may do great harm.

A guy at work, regardless of race, may say something really openly racist and offensive, against anybody. But what is far more destructive, is the often hidden-feelings, often held by those who may seem outwardly progressive(or would like us to think so), who have their hands on the levers of power, such as in human resources, admissions to university, healthcare, justice, and lending.

[Hiero]

The largest indignation over western injustice is actually very much confounded to academic spotlights in the west, while people in the third world in general tend to view the colonialism epoch as just another period of foreign-dominated government and the westerners as tyrants like any other.

It is quite strange you try to have us believe such a lie. We know about the last two hundred years of anti-colonial struggle that developed ideological lines that distinguished colonialism from past historical regimes of conquest. Or are you actually that deluded and can't for one moment put your European history fetish a side? You are constantly trying to neutralise history for some reason another, and it is quite sickening they way you would try to extinguish the views of anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism when you have no interest in people outside of European unless they play a pivotal role in your European fantasies (playing as some element of your neutral history). That would lead me to my question Which people do you have in mind and why are you an authority to declare such thoughts.

Colonialism emerged during the industrial revolution, the rise of modern capitalism and the rise of the modern national state. What followed was modern imperialism, the ruling role of finance capital. Along with this came modern ideologies such as nationalism, racism (the biological inferior type), law, statehood, the nation i.e Bourgeois ideology. These are the forms of economics and ideology that are based on the level of productive forces and relations of production which determines each epoch. This seperates colonialism/imperialism from ancient regimes that you have mentioned. This is the historical materialist method of distinguishing between epochs. This means the people of the Indian continent who experinced the Mughal empire, where not the same people who experienced the Colonialism of the United Kingdom. As they were different expereinces then we are talking about different lived subjects, connected only by ancestory (which does not pass ideology or experince biologically as we would have to believe in your theory).

A major point of colonialism was to make people into colonial subjects, under a whole series of ideological steps. This is after attempting to wipe out indigenous nations such as in Australia, USA, Canada, Caribbean etc. The ideological steps include, seperation (pushing people into camps, finge society), genocide by abducting children, assimilation, multiculturalism, all varying on each countries history. All have pyschological tolls that were different from earlier periods of conquest.

Colonial people lived under the conditions of oppression that were different to non-colonised people and people of different epochs. It was their essence that was always in question. They naturally were always failed subjects yet always put to a system of subjecting them to a colonial system. Their failures were further punished, they lived under contradiction. For example France declared liberalism and rights of man and portrayed this as their superiority to Algerian subjects. Yet they never practised such rights in the colonies to full extent. For what ever reason the Europeans gave for their justification for cultural superiority the colonised people never say this enacted. What this lead to was the depressed state of colonised people as they had internalised this points of their supposed inferiority and internalised violence against each other before turning it against the colonialist. The best explanation on this processes would be Fanon's Wretched of the Earth. There is still a considerable amount of people who live under such continued systems (Australia, USA, Canda).

If you actually showed any interest in third world struggles, you would see the vangaurd of these movements did infact not see Western Colonialism as simply another form of outside occupation. They declared it as colonialism! as opposed to their history of inside and outside rule and conquest. So if some people in the third world view western imperialism/colonialism as another form of domination, than that is their ideaological fault. However many anti-colonial political groups and armies did emphasis the difference and understood the difference (which you have failed to do) about another history and the history of colonialism. Such exmaples include ANC, PFLP, National Front for the Liberation of Southern Vietnam, North Vietnam, China, Korea, Algeria) Authors, Frantz Fanon, Kwawe Nkrumah, Sartre (there is a European for you!), Newton.

[Adi Shankara]

All white people in America are racist, if only for the fact that their livelihoods are built on the genocide and robbery of Native peoples.

you're a fucking idiot. my family came here in 1990, long gone were most native American lands, and we had nothing to contribute towards their genocide or displacement; my family was a bunch of Eastern Europeans escaping the perestroika reforms that left them (and most other Soviets) impoverished and the feared potential civil war of the impending post-USSR days; they left, and two years later was the coup and the end of the Soviet Union.

[bricolage]

you're a fucking idiot. my family came here in 1990, long gone were the native Americans,
Yeah cos Native Americans are 'long gone'...

[Adi Shankara]

Yeah cos Native Americans are 'long gone'...

I corrected my sentence.

[Adi Shankara]

Anyways, this thread is fucking stupid. whenever you use a blanket term to say "all white people are subtlety racist", that's being racist in itself. Whites benefit from the paradigm of this country, yes, but to say that most are racist is just asinine and ignorant as hell, and should be a bannable offense along the same terms would it be applied to a black or Asian person.

I mean, if you said are "most Americans today racist", that's different because Americans aren't a race and nationalities take on their own attributes due to the cultural situation and nationalist sentiments.

but most white Americans? that's offensive.

my opinion matters not to many, but that's my two cents.

[bricolage]

I corrected my sentence.
I'm still not sure I agree with it. I'm not from America and don't know too much about Native Americans but are their lands mostly all gone? For starters the land all still exists (even if it has been colonised) but from the looks of this map there is still a lot of Native American run land anyway;
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Americanindiansmapcensusbureau.gif

[bricolage]

whenever you use a blanket term to say "all white people are subtlety racist", that's being racist in itself.

but to say that most are racist is just asinine and ignorant as hell, and should be a bannable offense along the same terms would it be applied to a black or Asian person.I think there is a pretty big difference in that white people have never suffered historical oppression, slavery and subjugation and black and asian people don't benefit from such oppression, slavery and subjugation today. Reverse racism is largely bunk.
(I like quoting this, even if it from urbandictionary...)
"Billy cried "reverse racism" when the black boy called him a 'cracker' since it was not acceptable for Billy to call the boy 'nigger'. It's hard to understand how Billy was offended since no ancestor of his had even been called a 'cracker' as he was savagely whipped by a black man who owned him."

[Adi Shankara]

I think there is a pretty big difference in that white people have never suffered historical oppression, slavery and subjugation and black and asian people don't benefit from such oppression, slavery and subjugation today. Reverse racism is largely bunk.
(I like quoting this, even if it from urbandictionary...)
"Billy cried "reverse racism" when the black boy called him a 'cracker' since it was not acceptable for Billy to call the boy 'nigger'. It's hard to understand how Billy was offended since no ancestor of his had even been called a 'cracker' as he was savagely whipped by a black man who owned him."

they may have never suffered historical oppression or slavery (in fact, that's wrong, my ancestors were all enslaved, but anyways), but reverse racism is an incorrect term to begin with, seeing as racism is racism and nothing more.

for example, a white kid can be beaten up by a bunch of black kids for being white, and that would be racism would it not? or is that bunk too? racism hurts no matter who you are, thus we should try to end ALL forms of it, not just those that are politically correct.

[Kayser_Soso]

they may have never suffered historical oppression or slavery (in fact, that's wrong, my ancestors were all enslaved, but anyways), but reverse racism is an incorrect term to begin with, seeing as racism is racism and nothing more.

for example, a white kid can be beaten up by a bunch of black kids for being white, and that would be racism would it not? or is that bunk too? racism hurts no matter who you are, thus we should try to end ALL forms of it, not just those that are politically correct.


If we look at concrete racism, then obviously the black kids who beat on a white kid for being white would be worse than the white guy who doesn't hire someone for being black- ONLY in this individual case because one victim suffered physical violence. And even then, not getting a job can have major repercussions as well.

However, on the whole, reverse racism as a phenomenon, institutional reverse racism, or in other words racism against whites on par with racism against blacks in America...this simply is not happening, nor does it exist. Employers are not continually turning down white applicants despite higher qualifications, studies show the opposite is true. Police are not searching more white people despite the fact that whites are more likely to be carrying contraband. Whites are more likely to use drugs yet the majority of police are located in the ghettoes. White people don't get pulled over for being white, and let's face it, whites do not face racial violence at the hands of blacks on par with the opposite.

Oh yes we often here racialists say things like- blacks are more likely to attack whites than whites are to attack blacks. But think about this- why do they always say the reverse? Because if we are speaking only of who commits more violent crimes, we see that whites are more likely to be attacked by other whites. It isn't surprising that it's easier for a black criminal to find a white victim, or a white criminal to find a white victim, considering that the population is 70% white, and blacks make up 12%. So the idea that there is some huge rash of white kids being beaten up for being white, by blacks, Latinos, or otherwise, just doesn't hold water. Moreover, it's difficult to determine how many of these attacks are based on race.

Just for the record I'm not accusing you of making the above argument, I'm just dealing with the specific issue of racial violence against whites, or lack thereof(in comparison to that against minorities).

[bricolage]

(in fact, that's wrong, my ancestors were all enslaved, but anyways),
Yes but they weren't enslaved for being white I assume?


but reverse racism is an incorrect term to begin with, seeing as racism is racism and nothing more.
I'm using the terminology here.


for example, a white kid can be beaten up by a bunch of black kids for being white, and that would be racism would it not?
I'm sure in a technical sense yes it is racism but then it begs the question what do we make of it? Things like this are isolated cases and have no correlation to hierarchies and asymmetries in society, have no relation to historical processes and have no relation to racism that in institutional and societally ingrained (I'm talking about in the 'West' here).
So then a white kid gets beaten up by black kids, does that mean we start making black on white racism a primary issue? Does it mean we start comparing it to white on black racism? Of course not because the two are incomparable.

[GPDP]

I'm sure in a technical sense yes it is racism but then it begs the question what do we make of it? Things like this are isolated cases and have no correlation to hierarchies and asymmetries in society, have no relation to historical processes and have no relation to racism that in institutional and societally ingrained (I'm talking about in the 'West' here).
So then a white kid gets beaten up by black kids, does that mean we start making black on white racism a primary issue? Does it mean we start comparing it to white on black racism? Of course not because the two are incomparable.

This is a very important point that is lost on a lot of people, even those who by all other counts could not be considered racist. In my opinion, this is indicative of our societal knack to try to "individualize" events and divorce them from their historical and cultural context to make it easier to compare and equate events that have roots in our institutions with those that are little more than isolated phenomena. It applies to many things in addition to racism. For instance, it's why you have people denounce both Israel and the Palestinians equally, as if both parties have an equal hand in the perpetuation of the conflict.

Going back to racism, equating the beating up of a white kid by a group of black kids with the savage beating of a black man by white cops in Oakland can only be done if one assumes the legacy of historical black oppression is now only relevant in the history books and among individual bigots, and current institutional racism is ignored. One must ask themselves to what end does it take us to equate the two, because as I said, the only way to equate them is to treat both as individual events outside of their societal context. If you ask me, doing so serves only to downplay and obfuscate the real oppression that goes on to this day. To equate both is to impotently address the real problem, and this plays straight into the hands of those who hold the real power and do the real oppressing.

[leftace53]

Like many in this thread, I also think that they aren't necessarily "racist" in the traditional definition, just more along the lines of racially ignorant. It definitely also depends on where they live and what the general notion of race is around there.

[Hiratsuka]

All white people in America are racist, if only for the fact that their livelihoods are built on the genocide and robbery of Native peoples.

Metaphors like that trivialize actual violence as much as the statement "all men are rapists."

Not sure how the left is supposed to alleviate racial ignorance amongst whites if remarks that are only meant to antagonize them are used.

[Dimentio]

It is quite strange you try to have us believe such a lie. We know about the last two hundred years of anti-colonial struggle that developed ideological lines that distinguished colonialism from past historical regimes of conquest. Or are you actually that deluded and can't for one moment put your European history fetish a side? You are constantly trying to neutralise history for some reason another, and it is quite sickening they way you would try to extinguish the views of anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism when you have no interest in people outside of European unless they play a pivotal role in your European fantasies (playing as some element of your neutral history). That would lead me to my question Which people do you have in mind and why are you an authority to declare such thoughts.

Colonialism emerged during the industrial revolution, the rise of modern capitalism and the rise of the modern national state. What followed was modern imperialism, the ruling role of finance capital. Along with this came modern ideologies such as nationalism, racism (the biological inferior type), law, statehood, the nation i.e Bourgeois ideology. These are the forms of economics and ideology that are based on the level of productive forces and relations of production which determines each epoch. This seperates colonialism/imperialism from ancient regimes that you have mentioned. This is the historical materialist method of distinguishing between epochs. This means the people of the Indian continent who experinced the Mughal empire, where not the same people who experienced the Colonialism of the United Kingdom. As they were different expereinces then we are talking about different lived subjects, connected only by ancestory (which does not pass ideology or experince biologically as we would have to believe in your theory).

A major point of colonialism was to make people into colonial subjects, under a whole series of ideological steps. This is after attempting to wipe out indigenous nations such as in Australia, USA, Canada, Caribbean etc. The ideological steps include, seperation (pushing people into camps, finge society), genocide by abducting children, assimilation, multiculturalism, all varying on each countries history. All have pyschological tolls that were different from earlier periods of conquest.

Colonial people lived under the conditions of oppression that were different to non-colonised people and people of different epochs. It was their essence that was always in question. They naturally were always failed subjects yet always put to a system of subjecting them to a colonial system. Their failures were further punished, they lived under contradiction. For example France declared liberalism and rights of man and portrayed this as their superiority to Algerian subjects. Yet they never practised such rights in the colonies to full extent. For what ever reason the Europeans gave for their justification for cultural superiority the colonised people never say this enacted. What this lead to was the depressed state of colonised people as they had internalised this points of their supposed inferiority and internalised violence against each other before turning it against the colonialist. The best explanation on this processes would be Fanon's Wretched of the Earth. There is still a considerable amount of people who live under such continued systems (Australia, USA, Canda).

If you actually showed any interest in third world struggles, you would see the vangaurd of these movements did infact not see Western Colonialism as simply another form of outside occupation. They declared it as colonialism! as opposed to their history of inside and outside rule and conquest. So if some people in the third world view western imperialism/colonialism as another form of domination, than that is their ideaological fault. However many anti-colonial political groups and armies did emphasis the difference and understood the difference (which you have failed to do) about another history and the history of colonialism. Such exmaples include ANC, PFLP, National Front for the Liberation of Southern Vietnam, North Vietnam, China, Korea, Algeria) Authors, Frantz Fanon, Kwawe Nkrumah, Sartre (there is a European for you!), Newton.

I won't reply with a long-winded reply here. I would just say that people from the general population, no matter what place and time in history, generally have resented foreign occupation. That people form rebel movements to throw out invaders is usual and not something unique for the 20th century.

Usually, the people farming and working hate the foreign occupants more than their own domestic elite. The leaders of rebel organisations, unless those leaders are workers and peasants themselves, tend to get a more and more "pragmatic" attitude against their enemies as time pass by and they themselves acquire power.

I shouldn't have to remind you that the reason that the Aztec Empire fell was that the Spanish allied with city-states who were under Aztec dominance. Similar things happened in Africa, where for example the Belgians in Rwanda discriminated the old aristocracy ("the Tutsi") and elevated people from the majority group to decisive positions to be able to dominate them. The same thing the British did in Iraq.

But neither that is unique for colonialism and imperialism of the 19th and 20th centuries. The Persians, the Romans, the Incas, the Chinese and all other empires have dominated subjected peoples by splitting them and raising a dependent minority of them into the empire's own elite or at least into the regional elite.

The British Empire used a lot of Indian soldiers in Africa for example, but the Persian Empire 2500 years earlier used for example Babylonian soldiers in Egypt and Egyptian soldiers in Asia Minor.

It is not about eurocentrism. On the contrary, your ideas are eurocentric since they suppose that European colonialism was something uniquely evil in the history of humanity and that the peoples of the third world could only be understood in terms of being victims.

My criticism isn't about that. Even if Europeans were uniquely evil, almost satanically evil, it wouldn't be wise to build a political platform around that in Europe. It would basically mean a surrender of any kind of progressive struggle in Europe and simply sit down and wait to the revolution or something happens in the Third World.

[Cencus]

Most folks don't care about skin colour, they are too busy trying to keep the creditors from the door, whilst keeping the kids fed and in school, filling up the gaz guzzling SUV, and sucking the boss off to keep their jobs.

The simple fact is that most folks could give a a flying fuck as to what happens beyond their garden fence, if that makes them racist in your eyes then so be it.

[Kayser_Soso]

Metaphors like that trivialize actual violence as much as the statement "all men are rapists."

Not sure how the left is supposed to alleviate racial ignorance amongst whites if remarks that are only meant to antagonize them are used.


Not to mention the fact that this perpetuates the right-wing claim that we either "hate white people" or are loaded with "white guilt." It also validates the idea of a "white race."

[Kayser_Soso]

Most folks don't care about skin colour, they are too busy trying to keep the creditors from the door, whilst keeping the kids fed and in school, filling up the gaz guzzling SUV, and sucking the boss off to keep their jobs.

The simple fact is that most folks could give a a flying fuck as to what happens beyond their garden fence, if that makes them racist in your eyes then so be it.


They "care" when the media tells them that one group plans to get something at their expense. In a study called something like Why Americans Hate Welfare, the author found that most white Americans supported all kinds of social welfare programs when asked about them. They opposed any kind of welfare program, however, whenever they perceived, for whatever reason, that the benefits were going to go mostly to non-whites.

[RED DAVE]

It is a historical fact that many European settlers, although to a qualitatively different extent the settler ruling class, passed on wealth and power to their descendants. But this wealth doesn't somehow make those descendants necessarily racist.Racism has an objective and a subjective component.

The fact that these "descendants" consciously enjoy this wealth and power while huge sections of the population, based on race, do not, and the "descendants" know this and do nothing about it, makes them racist.

RED DAVE

[Reznov]

I'm not stereotyping, at least in my area white people seem to be disproportionately racist, and it would make sense that more white people would be racist in a culture where white supremacy rules. I'm just wondering if there are any statistics or whatever.

Really? Why don't we have a White History month then?

Anyways though, you really should not say something like "Are most white people racist" because its just like me saying "Are most black people criminals and live in the ghetto?"

I'm sure there are racist people everywhere but, I'm white and im not racist and I really haven't met any white person that is racist.

[bricolage]

Really? Why don't we have a White History month then?
Its called eleven months of the year.
http://www.apstudent.com/ushistory/docs1951/popquiz.gif

[Reznov]

Its called eleven months of the year.
http://www.apstudent.com/ushistory/docs1951/popquiz.gif

Ok, but what about European (White) History Month?

I mean, your saying White Men celebrate their 11-month long history by Discriminating against everyone that is not a White Man?

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

No to the opening question. Plenty of discrimination, but that's mostly a result of racial bias, not racism.


Ok, but what about European (White) History Month?


We already have Eurocentric history books in schools. What more do you want?

[Reznov]

We already have Eurocentric history books in schools. What more do you want?

The complete extermination and purification of every single person that is not a Racially Pure Aryan. (jk :laugh:)

But serouisly, I guess your right about that, but still though, what can be done to fix the problems then?

[727Goon]

Hey are there any good non-Eurocentric history books out there? Perhaps A Peoples History of The United States?

[Jimmie Higgins]

But serouisly, I guess your right about that, but still though, what can be done to fix the problems then?About racism and racial inequality?

Well in terms of short-term reforms there are a number of things:

A. For one thing the demands of the Black Panther Party are still pretty relevant and so we can pick up straight from there. Investement though our taxes to create decent jobs, housing, and massive re-investment in education would make things much better for working class people and working class people from minority groups.

Modern-day bread-line: 30,000 showed up for housing assistance in Atlanta (also at the same time that the amount of vacant homes in Detroit equals the size of San Francisco):

http://www.ajc.com/multimedia/dynamic/00647/section8_647971c.jpg

B. End systemic racism. This means a full-on movement against the court and prison system, death penalty, racial profiling and so on. These funds should be used to help workers (and could pay for the types of reforms mentioned in "A") rather than lock up poor people.

In California, almost every city is forcing their city workers to take cuts, teachers are being fired, and the people running for Governor are threatening to cut pensions... all with the cry: "California lives beyond its means". Yet, this week, the state BORROWED money to build a new death penalty chamber!

C. Revolution. While I think it's possible to win reforms (the 60s and 30s showed this), they are always temporary. So ultimately we need to get rid of the root of divisions in the working class which is the system that makes us compete over needlessly scarce resources (since the ruling class takes the cake and leaves us the crumbs).

[Kayser_Soso]

Ok, but what about European (White) History Month?

I mean, your saying White Men celebrate their 11-month long history by Discriminating against everyone that is not a White Man?

European and "white" are not the same thing. There is no solid group of people known as Europeans or "white". If you want to get a good idea of how this works, go to Ireland and see what people think of Americans running around saying things like "I'M IRISH!!!" Genetics, descent, and all of this mean nothing to Europeans. Even when people like Germans call themselves thus, the title used to identify oneself changed throughout history until finally this idea of "German" above that of "Bavarian", "Prussian", etc. prevailed.

[Hiero]

I would just say that people from the general population, no matter what place and time in history, generally have resented foreign occupation. That people form rebel movements to throw out invaders is usual and not something unique for the 20th century.


That is not something I was arguing against. Nor what you said about the tactics used.


It is not about eurocentrism. On the contrary, your ideas are eurocentric since they suppose that European colonialism was something uniquely evil in the history of humanity and that the peoples of the third world could only be understood in terms of being victims.

How did I imply that they were "uniquely evil". I said it was unique, the level of evilness was never in question. I am not going to compare historys on such a superficial level. Generally the ancient regimes would win, the stories of Greeks and Persians castarating males, putting women into slavery or Rome salting Carthage would in many cases seem more "evil".

My position was a Marxist positions, that the level of productive forces and relations of production determine the relationships between people. That is subjective(ideological) and objective relations. This defines an epoch. The relations of the colonised to colonisation and runing parallel the relations of colonised to imperialism still exist today. That includes nations and classes that were treated favourably during colonialism as well as thoose who suffered and still suffering. And that is one of the big differences, in past regimes control of territory was always contested and changing. Now the imperialist can control a population for expliotation through the use of home army and international conventions (finance capital).

My criticism of your eurocentrasim is that you don't look at history in the Marxist sense (productive forces and relations of production) and not as histories that constitute subjects different in each different epoch due to dominanting relations of production. But rather you look at it as processes of neutral histories of conquest. That nations have before conquered other nations before and this era is nothing different and it is a done deal.

And this is why we get ignorant statements that are supportive of colonialism such as:


long gone were most native American lands

Which is Thomas Sankara's correction, though still supportive of colonialism. The reason is because Native Americans still exist,their land is colonised. You are living on Native American lands!

Saying they are long gone is apart of accepting and supporting colonialism. Colonialism dominanting effect is to deny the existance of indigenous people*. This includes removing any notification of indigenous people's existance whether past or present. In Australia this is often done by changing names of locations to English names. Or if using indigenous names using them in a superficial manner. The point is to say "European rule here", regardless of if indigenous people still exist in the area. It is like European Jew arriving at Israel and saying "it is all good, there are no Arabs here".



it wouldn't be wise to build a political platform around that in Europe.


That is what people did though in such examples like France and Portugal, Portugal being more signficant here. Where a local populace rallied against the existing conditions and helped bring down colonialism and imperialism.

It is not about abadoning political struggle in the 1st world nations, but coming to the realisation that 1st world and 3rd world are not parralel. It is about coming to the realisation of 1st world and 3rd world is intertwined.

My best reccomendation is to read Marx's Germany Ideology, which is avialable online. Edward Saids Orientalism, and maybe Frantz Fanon's Wretched of the Earth. Start with either Marx or Said.

* In regards to this. To the poster who said that in Tasmania the colonist wiped out the entire indigenous people. This is not true and is a common easily made mistake. There are in Tasmania people who identify as indigenous. I am not sure why this rumour was held for so long and became common. I guess it is another processes of colonialism, denying the existance of indigenous people by the colonisers.

[COMPLEXproductions]

I think we need to differentiate between Racism A: "My race is the best" and Racism B: "THOSE people are the same." I guess self-righteousness vs stereotyping. Racism vs stereotypes. Modern day america, I believe, is full of stereotypical individuals, but not racist in the form it was 70years ago where whites believed themselves outright BETTER than everyone else. Stereotyping especially in the form of "that group causes this." This is aided by the media's generalization of things they do not like, of course.

[counterblast]

I dont know about that, I don't think its right to blame people for shit their ancestors did. Obviously American culture does promote at least a subtle white supremacy but blaming every white person for it is wrongheaded as fuck.

Its not just something that their ancestors did, though. Its something that is continuing, unchallenged to this day.

Most of the white people who upheld South African apartheid had no role in the implementation of those racist policies -- but that doesn't mean they were less complicit in or responsible for a system of racism and classism.

What is being said isn't that you should "pay for your ancestors sins" but rather; you shouldn't profit from them.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I dunno...certainly there's not as much overt, explicit racism in society. I wonder how much latent, subconscious racism still exists, though. They recently did a study in my city in which they took two groups of youth, one composed of white kids and one composed of black kids, and had them beat a car that was parked along a frequently travelled path with bats and pipes. The amount of 911 calls they got from people who walked by the white kids was three, and two of those calls were about two suspicious black teens who were sleeping in a near-by car (LOL!). A lot of people just saw them and kept walking. When they had the black kids repeat the same action, they received at least nine 911 calls.

Of course, that's not some dramatic statement about the closet racism of all white people or Americans or anything, but I just thought that it was interesting.

[Kayser_Soso]

I dunno...certainly there's not as much overt, explicit racism in society. I wonder how much latent, subconscious racism still exists, though. They recently did a study in my city in which they took two groups of youth, one composed of white kids and one composed of black kids, and had them beat a car that was parked along a frequently travelled path with bats and pipes. The amount of 911 calls they got from people who walked by the white kids was three, and two of those calls were about two suspicious black teens who were sleeping in a near-by car (LOL!). A lot of people just saw them and kept walking. When they had the black kids repeat the same action, they received at least nine 911 calls.

Of course, that's not some dramatic statement about the closet racism of all white people or Americans or anything, but I just thought that it was interesting.

Yeah I remember seeing this test.

[727Goon]

Its not just something that their ancestors did, though. Its something that is continuing, unchallenged to this day.

Most of the white people who upheld South African apartheid had no role in the implementation of those racist policies -- but that doesn't mean they were less complicit in or responsible for a system of racism and classism.

What is being said isn't that you should "pay for your ancestors sins" but rather; you shouldn't profit from them.

I don't think all white people in South Africa were complicit in apartheid. I'm sure there were at least some white people opposing it. The white working class dont uphold the white power system, they have no say in the continuation of white supremacy the upper classes do, and I honestly think it's pretty racist to accuse someone of supporting racism just because of the color of their skin.

[Burn A Flag]

I'd say people are more likely to discriminate against people who are poorer, than they are rascist.

[727Goon]

I'd say people are more likely to discriminate against people who are poorer, than they are rascist.

Then obviously you've never applied for a job, while not being white.

[9]

I think racist ideas are pretty prevalent in the US among all people. When the working class is weak, ruling class ideologies and prejudices are strong.

[Kayser_Soso]

I'd say people are more likely to discriminate against people who are poorer, than they are rascist.

LOL WUT


Also, isn't that handle a bit of an oxymoron? There never has been a Trotskyist revolution.

[black magick hustla]

there is still racism actually. most colored people can attest this. i dont hold white people responsable for it tho

[727Goon]

colored people

OK dude I'm not trying to call you racist or anything, but "Colored"? This isn't like 1950 haha.

[COMPLEXproductions]

I think racism might be the result of capitalism. I think before all of this people just despised the opposition, and once we needed a justification for the predominantly african, american slave market. Especially after the abolition of slaves, we produced "studies" that scientifically proved their inferiority and even stating blacks were on the road to extinction(how we scientifically proved we needed to segregate to ensure the "purity" of the white race in the late 1800s). Of course some of that remains now, plus it's a good way to keep everyone distracted. Similar to gay's rights today, the big-wigs don't give a fuck, but it's a good distraction for sure. Even many mexican families are SUPER racist to blacks, and i think that is because in the americas spain used racism to keep the oppressed separate and from uniting to fight their common oppressor.

[Barry Lyndon]

I have no hard evidence, but from my personal experience I would say yes, if only subconsciously.
Including me.
I am white and live on the South Side of Chicago and I will cross to the other side of the street if I am walking home alone at night, and see a black male coming toward me. I'm far more likely to do it then if its a white male. I know its racist to presume that the black guy is going to mug me, but something deep inside makes me feel that way.
The question is how much such personal attitudes actually harm people. It's debatable and I think it depends on the circumstances. I think we all have personal prejudices and weaknesses. The question is whether we are open to constantly questioning or struggling against those prejudices, or if we allow those prejudices to fester. I try, to the best of my ability, to combat my personal prejudices and to fight against it externally when I have the opportunity to, and thats the best we can strive for. To loudly proclaim 'I'm not racist' is just egocentric self-exultation.

Furthermore, by far the most destructive racism that exists in the USA today is institutional racism- The War on Drugs, inferior education, inferior health care, inferior housing. Even if no one in the United States were to be consciously racist, racism would still exist because of the economic inequality of blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans relative to whites that is the poisonous legacy of centuries of slavery, segregation, and colonization. You can't undo 400 years of history by just changing a few laws or trying to change everyone's personal attitude.

[black magick hustla]

OK dude I'm not trying to call you racist or anything, but "Colored"? This isn't like 1950 haha.


well when i mean colored i mean brown and black and whatever is not white

[Jimmie Higgins]

there is still racism actually. most people of color can attest this. i dont hold white people responsable for it tho
That's better.

I knew what you meant, but yeah, you don't want to accidentially sound like an old Dixiecrat or something.

[Ocean Seal]

Even if we were to take into account people that are racist behind closed doors, I would find the racists outnumbered.

[Adi Shankara]

Its not just something that their ancestors did, though. Its something that is continuing, unchallenged to this day.

Most of the white people who upheld South African apartheid had no role in the implementation of those racist policies -- but that doesn't mean they were less complicit in or responsible for a system of racism and classism.

What is being said isn't that you should "pay for your ancestors sins" but rather; you shouldn't profit from them.

but by even living in South Africa, they are technically profiting from their ancestor's "sins". what do you want all white South Africans to do, commit mass suicide?

society needs to balance economics and address grievances, but the blame has to stop somewhere. I mean whats next, do we blame Arabs for stomping out the Egyptian culture? do we scream "racist" at English people for stomping out the Picts?

seriously, get a grip on reality.

[Adi Shankara]

I take the Marxist belief that all racism is caused by economic imbalance and misunderstanding. get rid of capitalism, and you'll eradicate racism forever.

[Hiero]

I take the Marxist belief that all racism is caused by economic imbalance and misunderstanding. get rid of capitalism, and you'll eradicate racism forever.

Would you like to elaborate on that?

[727Goon]

I take the Marxist belief that all racism is caused by economic imbalance and misunderstanding. get rid of capitalism, and you'll eradicate racism forever.

No. Just no.

[Raúl Duke]

I'd say people are more likely to discriminate against people who are poorer, than they are rascist.


LOL WUT
In Puerto Rico this is the case actually, more so than racism.


but by even living in South Africa, they are technically profiting from their ancestor's "sins". what do you want all white South Africans to do, commit mass suicide?

lol

the idea of whites "profiting" from apartheid reminds me of the whole labor aristocracy idea where 1st world workers "profit" from imperialism...

the logical outcomes of these ideas are potentially batshit insane.

[GrungeGestapo]

I wouldn't exactly say most people in America are Racist, at least I'd like to believe so, but its not like I've met them all. I certainly hope not, but it doesn't sound so insane since the younger generation is being brainwashed by racist material in the media. I'm not trying to bash ALL of the media, but I mean if you go play Modern Warfare 2 on Xbox Live you will hear 12 year olds using the word n*gger as an insult. But there are Racists everywhere, not just America. Racism is like a disease, it needs to be stopped.

[727Goon]

ATTN WHITE PEOPLE
Please try to refrain from using the words "Colored" or "People of Color" to refer to non whites. One will make you sound like a bourgie liberal who likes the idea of non whites on paper and the other will make you sounds like someone white person's off color grandpa.

[Autumn Red]

Most are not inherently racist, no. But the sheer fact of the matter is that most white people do in fact feel uncomfortable around those of different races.

I don't believe this to be racism, I point it rather to a lack of understanding and a fear of the unknown.

It's quite natural actually, and the only cure would be to foster communication between groups.

Source: I come from a white, middle class background.

[Adi Shankara]

ATTN WHITE PEOPLE
Please try to refrain from using the words "Colored" or "People of Color" to refer to non whites. One will make you sound like a bourgie liberal who likes the idea of non whites on paper and the other will make you sounds like someone white person's off color grandpa.

I don't know any Anglo-saxon white person who uses those words. though Russians use terms that can be considered politically incorrect, but then again we use them for other European groups as well, seeing as most of us think that Slavs are a race seperate from other whites, blacks, whatever.

[Kayser_Soso]

ATTN WHITE PEOPLE
Please try to refrain from using the words "Colored" or "People of Color" to refer to non whites. One will make you sound like a bourgie liberal who likes the idea of non whites on paper and the other will make you sounds like someone white person's off color grandpa.

I think non-white would suffice. White is a socio-political construct, a sort of club. For example, one day Irish people were outside the club; today it's common sense that Irish people are "white."

[Hiero]

To answer the original question.

I am finding the term "racist" problematic. I am currently studying White nationalism in Australia. This nationalism has a wide variety form racist nationalist to mutlicultural/tolerant nationalist.

The term nationalism can be a subsituted for racism. When white people in Australia countries talk about Australia there is a nation and people who belong or don't belong and are some where inbetween. Belonging is defined in a variety of ways, even the way people participate in leisure can be a marker for belonging.

This is where racism comes problematic. Some people like Pauline Hanson or David Duke may make the statement that "these people" have a vibrant culture and they not inferior or superior to White Anglo culture, however their culture is not compaitable so they should be stoped at the borders or be managed in a way that does not threaten White culture. There is nothing racist in the traditional sense, the issue is an essentionalised culture and threat to a nation. In a non-traditional sense there is a form of racism. However this word is inadequate to explain the complexity of race/ethnic-relations.

I think alot of people in Western nations including White people think along national lines where race is interwined into culture and behaviour.

[Kayser_Soso]

I think I get what you mean, but trust me, if you ever see a White Nationalist talking about just wanting to "preserve diversity" or "every race is special", keep an eye on them. When they are not speaking in public, it's N#$ger this and k#$e that. They can't help it; that's why they're in the movement in the first place most of the time.

[Queercommie Girl]

I take the Marxist belief that all racism is caused by economic imbalance and misunderstanding. get rid of capitalism, and you'll eradicate racism forever.

Actually, the elimination of class society only provides the objective conditions for the disappearance of all forms of discrimination: racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia, in a similar way to how modern technology and industry provides the objective conditions for the emergence of socialism. But no form of discrimination, racist or otherwise, can ever automatically fade away, without the subjective factor against discrimination coming into play. Indeed, racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia exist widely among the working class itself and among socialists of every tendency. Socialists are not automatically "saints", and nothing happens by magic.

[Kayser_Soso]

Conditions like scarcity and the forced competition of capitalism clashes with natural social tendencies. This may be part of the reason why people will so easily be swayed into siding with "familiar" groups and turned against "other" groups. So like others are saying, yes the abolishment of class-based society with its competition over everything will undermine the foundation of things like racism, but it will not eliminate these ideas entirely any more than it would eliminate say, religious-based beliefs.

[Queercommie Girl]

However, it is somewhat defeatist to say that discrimination can never be completely erased in a kind of quasi-metaphysical way. The fact of the matter is that no-one can really predict the future, but potentially anything is possible. (As a Chinese saying goes: Impossible is nothing) However, what is clear is that nothing happens "automatically" without people subjectively struggling for it. Marxism is an ideology of struggle.

[kalu]

I don't know if this question could be resolved based on polling (such a poll would have to be extremely subtle, not "do you think other racial groups are inferior?"), but based on my own experiences, I would have to say that I feel extremely tense in predominantly white areas given the fact that my friends and I have frequently been subjected to racial attacks (mostly verbal). I wouldn't doubt for a second that most of those white people, when directly approached, would claim that they aren't racist.:rolleyes: Racism has a funny way of just gliding beneath the surface in America, so I really don't put much currency into the idea that just because someone "has black friends" or "doesn't think other groups are inferior" means they aren't (or don't behave) in racist ways. Frankly, I would think it courageous if a Black person walked into a white Denny's in most parts of America.

And check it out now
Who is the cat eatin out on the town
And make the whole dining room turn they head round
Mr Nigga, Nigga Nigga
He got the speakers in the trunk with the bass on crunk
Who be ridin up in the highrise elevator
Other tenants who be prayin they ain't the new neighbor
Mr Nigga, Nigga Nigga
They try to play him like a chump cause he got what they want
-Mos Def

And I just don't be feeling it
Racism still alive they just be concealing it
But I know they don't want me in the damn club
They even made me show I.D to get inside of Sam's club
-Kanye West (yeah yeah, Kanye is bourgeois or whatever, but this racial experience speaks to my reality)

Let's bring this though to a theoretical level: only a small fraction of white people recognize white privilege, which isn't just based on past wrongs, but the "interest" that accrue to them based on those past (and current!) actions--most obviously the enslavement of Blacks and Native American removal, and the definition of whiteness as purity, ex. the notorious "one drop" rule, therefore a distinct domain of privilege--which are legally affirmed in the post-civil rights era as the natural results of "exchange" in "civil society" (note the Marxist resonances? see Cheryl Harris, "Whiteness is property"). Clearly, the debate on affirmative action shows this to be the case. Now, while the Left strategy to articulate the reasons behind affirmative action hasn't exactly been effective, and while I don't doubt that on other issues--for example, immigration--people can be for restricting the border without being "racist" per se, I think that the white privilege factor is definitely ignored conveniently in these types of debates, and thus indicates a wider problem with white supremacy (and at an intellectual level, Eurocentrism) that we have no doubt not surpassed. Not to mention the more blatant forms of racism now taking shape, like Islamophobia. Which makes the work of comrades like Tim Wise that much more important...

[Queercommie Girl]

I wouldn't doubt for a second that most of those white people, when directly approached, would claim that they aren't racist.:rolleyes:


Yes, it's the same with sexism, homophobia and transphobia.

Like I once posted a thread in an Asian American forum (which is supposed to be "leftist") called Model Minority asking people's opinions on transgenderism. The great contrast that occurred there was between the 90% supportive and partially supportive poll result and the vicious transphobic insults in the thread itself. Fuck, I've never ever seen such a huge contrast anywhere in my life.

Frankly, I've had enough with political correctness. I'd rather transphobes just come out with literal hate language like "fuck all of you trannies, you all deserve to be tortured to death" then hide their hatred behind a hypocritical superficial veil of "political correctness".

I think racists, sexists, homophobes and transphobes should not be banned on RevLeft at all, no matter how extreme or hateful they become. I say genuine oppression is better than pseudo-equality, because it is easier to struggle against the former. Also, "political correctness" does not win people's hearts, bigots will remain bigots no matter how many times you ban them. I want to change bigots' hearts, not throw them into a metaphorical political gulag.

[kalu]

I have no hard evidence, but from my personal experience I would say yes, if only subconsciously.
Including me.
I am white and live on the South Side of Chicago and I will cross to the other side of the street if I am walking home alone at night, and see a black male coming toward me. I'm far more likely to do it then if its a white male. I know its racist to presume that the black guy is going to mug me, but something deep inside makes me feel that way.
The question is how much such personal attitudes actually harm people. It's debatable and I think it depends on the circumstances. I think we all have personal prejudices and weaknesses. The question is whether we are open to constantly questioning or struggling against those prejudices, or if we allow those prejudices to fester. I try, to the best of my ability, to combat my personal prejudices and to fight against it externally when I have the opportunity to, and thats the best we can strive for. To loudly proclaim 'I'm not racist' is just egocentric self-exultation.

Furthermore, by far the most destructive racism that exists in the USA today is institutional racism- The War on Drugs, inferior education, inferior health care, inferior housing. Even if no one in the United States were to be consciously racist, racism would still exist because of the economic inequality of blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans relative to whites that is the poisonous legacy of centuries of slavery, segregation, and colonization. You can't undo 400 years of history by just changing a few laws or trying to change everyone's personal attitude.

Thank you for your honesty comrade. It would be nice if more people could speak from their personal experiences like this, instead of damn near crapping their pants and hiding under a desk shouting "No one's a racist! I'm a liberal/leftist/libertarian anyways!" when this sort of topic comes around.

[Hiero]

I think I get what you mean, but trust me, if you ever see a White Nationalist talking about just wanting to "preserve diversity" or "every race is special", keep an eye on them. When they are not speaking in public, it's N#$ger this and k#$e that. They can't help it; that's why they're in the movement in the first place most of the time.


I wasn't saying that one does not fit with the other, I am quite sure that White Nationalist do speak like that.

The last part is confusing, you say they are in the movement because they speak like "N#$ger this and k#$e that".

I am just a bit confused about how you read what I wrote. I was just trying show how I want to unpack a whole lot of scenarios of race/ethnic relations. That means upacking racism, which is part of the reason why I can't understand your last part. You take racism as almost essentialist, that they are "racists" that is why they are in the White Nationalist movement.

What I would say is that thier White Nationalism and casual racism is a product of .... Which can be an issue of their fantasy for control over the nation, a fantastical perception that there was an era when "we" had control over the country and could go about in "our" natural way before "they" undermined our power through our own government sold us out under multiculturalism and political correctness.

I think this is a key to understanding nationalism and racism. It is this assumption of totality of the nation and the imagined object that blocks this totality. Then how this works on the many levels of interaction between people.

[Rafiq]

Answer: Yes.

[Ztrain]

Sort of....sometimes I see my freinds getting nervous when a black man is near...

[Volcanicity]

Sort of....sometimes I see my freinds getting nervous when a black man is near...
Then you need to enlighten them or get some new friends.

[Vanguard1917]

All white people in America are racist, if only for the fact that their livelihoods are built on the genocide and robbery of Native peoples.

Oh right, because that's what determines white US workers' wages. If so, then it must also determine the wages of black and latino US workers, since they work in the same country and often in exactly the same workplace as white workers, doing exactly the same job for exactly the same wage. Thus those black and latino workers are also racist. That's what your somewhat erroneous understanding of racism implies.

[9]

Oh right, because that's what determines white US workers' wages. If so, then it must also determine the wages of black and latino US workers, since they work in the same country and often in exactly the same workplace as white workers, doing exactly the same job for exactly the same wage. Thus those black and latino workers are also racist. That's what your somewhat erroneous understanding of racism implies.

I don't agree with counterblast on this at all, but I think it is important not to overlook the reality that wages tend not to be 'exactly the same':

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/734/24790221.png

[Barry Lyndon]

Oh right, because that's what determines white US workers' wages. If so, then it must also determine the wages of black and latino US workers, since they work in the same country and often in exactly the same workplace as white workers, doing exactly the same job for exactly the same wage. Thus those black and latino workers are also racist. That's what your somewhat erroneous understanding of racism implies.

No more erroneous then your support of white-supremacist Holocaust denial of the Native American genocide. You know the thread I'm talking about.

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't agree with counterblast on this at all, but I think it is important not to overlook the reality that wages tend not to be 'exactly the same':

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/734/24790221.png

:thumbup1: Well said.

[Queercommie Girl]

No more erroneous then your support of white-supremacist Holocaust denial of the Native American genocide. You know the thread I'm talking about.

I actually hope this is not true, because denying NA genocide is frankly very disturbing coming from a leftist.

[leninfan]

I have heard recently that some blacks want to be referred to as "Black Americans" I think thats cool.. BET...

[Vanguard1917]

I don't agree with counterblast on this at all, but I think it is important not to overlook the reality that wages tend not to be 'exactly the same':

I didn't say that they're exactly the same; i said that they often are, in order to point out the flaw in her definition of white workers' racism as being caused by 'the fact that their livelihoods are built on the genocide and robbery of Native peoples'. If there are black and latino workers who work alongside white workers and earn the same wages, then they are also making their livelihoods from 'the genocide and robbery of Native peoples', and must thus also be racist according to her understanding of racism.

[Vanguard1917]

I actually hope this is not true, because denying NA genocide is frankly very disturbing coming from a leftist.

He's referring to my argument (made by all Marxists, from Marx and Engels to Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg) that the European discovery of America was a historically progressive event in that it gave birth to the epoch of capitalism and thus laid the foundations for the possibility of an international movement of workers for socialism.

[Queercommie Girl]

He's referring to my argument (made by all Marxists, from Marx and Engels to Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg) that the European discovery of America was a historically progressive event in that it gave birth to the epoch of capitalism and thus laid the foundations for the possibility of an international movement of workers for socialism.

Technically it was only partially progressive, like how the Chinese feudal revolution 2500 years ago was.

Fundamentally any change from one type of class society to another can only ever be partially progressive. It kinds of defeats the whole purpose of class struggle if they were ever wholly progressive.

It doesn't mean a Marxist should actively deny the crimes of Western colonialism though. Marx and Engels always had a very consistent line on general anti-colonialism. Read for instance the comments they made about Western colonialism in China.

And if you read for instance A People's History of the United States, racial antagonisms between white workers, black slaves and native Americans were actually deliberately used and amplified by the white capitalist ruling class in their "divide-and-rule" policy against the proletariat in general.

There is a matter of textual weight. Sure, Marx and Engels made some comments about the partial progressiveness of early capitalism, but they said much much more against capitalism. So it's isn't a good idea to emphasise the "progressive-ness" of the capitalist American revolution too much, like the revisionist CPUSA does.

Much of the civil rights people in the West have now (such as women's rights, ethnic minority rights and LGBT rights etc) are not inherent elements in capitalism at all, but only emerged as a result of subsequent proletarian and mass struggle.

[Vanguard1917]

Sure, Marx and Engels made some comments about the partial progressiveness of early capitalism, but they said much much more against capitalism.

Marx and Engels understood that there was no inconsistency whatsoever in recognising capitalism's historical achievements and, at the same time, condemning it and calling for its violent overthrow. That's historical materialism, dialectical to the core, something which we need to employ in the way we understand history, too.

[ZeroNowhere]

No more erroneous then your support of white-supremacist Holocaust denial of the Native American genocide. You know the thread I'm talking about.I think that your eyesight may have been erroneous here, as this is quite clearly not a thread about the Native American genocide and VG1917's opinions on it.

[Queercommie Girl]

I think that your eyesight may have been erroneous here, as this is quite clearly not a thread about the Native American genocide and VG1917's opinions on it.

But I don't see why Barry can't mention it here, since it is clearly related to the general issue of this thread, namely racism in America.

[Barry Lyndon]

I think that your eyesight may have been erroneous here, as this is quite clearly not a thread about the Native American genocide and VG1917's opinions on it.

To racists and racism enablers like you, the suffering of Native Americans and other darker peoples are never relevant.

[Barry Lyndon]

He's referring to my argument (made by all Marxists, from Marx and Engels to Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg) that the European discovery of America was a historically progressive event in that it gave birth to the epoch of capitalism and thus laid the foundations for the possibility of an international movement of workers for socialism.

This is not what I was condemning you for. I was condemning the fact that you were backing up Invader Zim's(sp?) spurious argument that the destruction of the Native American population was almost entirely the result of smallpox and other diseases- which washes the hands of the colonizers by making the catastrophe seem like a natural occurrence rather then a conscious act of genocide against an entire people.

This is perfectly relevant, in that it shows how even 'leftists' allow subconsciously racist narratives to seep into their minds, and then hide behind psuedo-intellectual 'objectivity' to justify such narratives. When other people get justifiably upset about such a disgusting worldview, its written off as 'those people' being 'irrational' and 'emotional'.

[Commiechu]

I believe there was a statistic saying 43% of white people in America think Racism is a problem (But you can't just assume the other 57% are racists)

[Aesop]

I believe there was a statistic saying 43% of white people in America think Racism is a problem (But you can't just assume the other 67% are racists)

You mean 'assume the other 57% are racists':).
Your right you can not assume that the remainder are racist. However such views like that help to perprtuate the racism, because if these individuals do not see racism as a problem then how can they combat it within society.

[9]

Technically it was only partially progressive,

tbh, I think this is the character that progressive movement always has had within class society when it doesn't represent the possibility of abolishing class society itself.
Engels says something in 'Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State' that I think can generally be applied to everything that Marxists have considered progressive:



Originally Posted by Engels
...together with slavery and private wealth, it opens the period that has lasted until today in which every step forward is also relatively a step backward, in which prosperity and development for some is won through the misery and frustration of others.So when Marxists talk about something being "progressive", it isn't a moral judgment - as if its saying that its "good". It simply refers to the fact that it develops the objective conditions which lay the groundwork, from a marxist perspective, for the abolition of class society itself.

[Queercommie Girl]

tbh, I think this is the character that progressive movement always has had within class society when it doesn't represent the possibility of abolishing class society itself.
Engels says something in 'Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State' that I think can generally be applied to everything that Marxists have considered progressive:

So when Marxists talk about something being "progressive", it isn't a moral judgment - as if its saying that its "good". It simply refers to the fact that it develops the objective conditions which lay the groundwork, from a marxist perspective, for the abolition of class society itself.

"Every step forward is also relatively a step backward, in which prosperity and development for some is won through the misery and frustration of others" does sound like partially progressive for me. "A step forward for some, a step backward for others".

[Peter The Painter]

How dare anyone say most whites are racist, this is fucking RACISM, and it is fucking acceptable, because, white people are all imperialist first world babykillers, right?

If i perpetuated racist stereotypes about blacks, i would be banned, but hell, the white proletariat are allowed to be called anything under the fucking sun.

Seriously, this fucking reverse racism is fucking dispicable, as well as white on black racism, seriously, WTF

[Vanguard1917]

This is not what I was condemning you for. I was condemning the fact that you were backing up Invader Zim's(sp?) spurious argument that the destruction of the Native American population was almost entirely the result of smallpox and other diseases- which washes the hands of the colonizers by making the catastrophe seem like a natural occurrence rather then a conscious act of genocide against an entire people.

Any proof that i made this argument? (There isn't, simply because i didn't.)

[hemlock]

How dare anyone say most whites are racist, this is fucking RACISM, and it is fucking acceptable, because, white people are all imperialist first world babykillers, right?

If i perpetuated racist stereotypes about blacks, i would be banned, but hell, the white proletariat are allowed to be called anything under the fucking sun.

Seriously, this fucking reverse racism is fucking dispicable, as well as white on black racism, seriously, WTF

Reverse racism = a term coined originally by racists in the 70s (nixon era) who resented the fact that open racism was no longer considered acceptable social norms.

No one is saying whites are all evil, or all racist babykillers, but in American history, one would be a fool or a fascist to ignore the fact that the white populous has acted in mostly its own interests to the extreme, and overly zealous disinterests of nonwhites. Some would argue every ethnic group naturally does this, however historically there has been comparably little cross conflict between minority groups when compared to white-on-other conflicts. At least in America.

Be it murdering native americans (not all whites did so, but those that did so did in the name of the white race *see manifest destiny*) enslaving blacks, jim crow, the American imperial era, the mexican american war, the civil war, and even the immigration and muslim debates now.

Not all (and not most) white Americans are various levels of active racists, but those white americans who in fact are racist hold a GREAT deal of sway over government policy (see arizona anti mexican laws, the tea party movement, the anti muslim bashing, the birthers etc, police killings etc), to the point that they are over represented socially by effect to nonwhites (and gays and women and muslim whites).

[Kayser_Soso]

Reverse racism = a term coined originally by racists in the 70s (nixon era) who resented the fact that open racism was no longer considered acceptable social norms.

No one is saying whites are all evil, or all racist babykillers, but in American history, one would be a fool or a fascist to ignore the fact that the white populous has acted in mostly its own interests to the extreme, and overly zealous disinterests of nonwhites. Some would argue every ethnic group naturally does this, however historically there has been comparably little cross conflict between minority groups when compared to white-on-other conflicts. At least in America.

Be it murdering native americans (not all whites did so, but those that did so did in the name of the white race *see manifest destiny*) enslaving blacks, jim crow, the American imperial era, the mexican american war, the civil war, and even the immigration and muslim debates now.

Not all (and not most) white Americans are various levels of active racists, but those white americans who in fact are racist hold a GREAT deal of sway over government policy (see arizona anti mexican laws, the tea party movement, the anti muslim bashing, the birthers etc, police killings etc), to the point that they are over represented socially by effect to nonwhites (and gays and women and muslim whites).

Most of those times the "whites" were not acting in their own interest. They were actually acting in the interests of those who created this "white" myth in the first place.

[727Goon]

How dare anyone say most whites are racist, this is fucking RACISM, and it is fucking acceptable, because, white people are all imperialist first world babykillers, right?

If i perpetuated racist stereotypes about blacks, i would be banned, but hell, the white proletariat are allowed to be called anything under the fucking sun.

Seriously, this fucking reverse racism is fucking dispicable, as well as white on black racism, seriously, WTF

Yeah my bad bruh, it was pretty uppity of me.

Seriously, somebody best call the WAAAAAAHHHHmbulance.

[hemlock]

Most of those times the "whites" were not acting in their own interest. They were actually acting in the interests of those who created this "white" myth in the first place.

?? I agree 'race' is a created myth, and I totally agree the people on the ground doing the killing and whatnot were not the organizers or planners of the schemes, but those who acted did identify themselves as part of that 'white race' myth.

[Queercommie Girl]

No one is saying whites are all evil, or all racist babykillers, but in American history, one would be a fool or a fascist to ignore the fact that the white populous has acted in mostly its own interests to the extreme, and overly zealous disinterests of nonwhites. Some would argue every ethnic group naturally does this, however historically there has been comparably little cross conflict between minority groups when compared to white-on-other conflicts. At least in America.


Anyone who really believes this (not saying you do of course) is really stupid. Nothing is just "natural" in the "social darwinist" sense for Marxists. Humans are not animals. For humans the socio-economic dimension is always primary.

Even for white people, it certainly isn't universally true that whites have never been able to truly unite with other ethnic groups and races. In early colonial America, there were many cases of impoverished white workers and servants, black slaves and native Americans uniting together to fight against their white capitalist bosses. Some white servants even escaped to native American tribes and became one of their tribesmen and never returned to European society. It was the white capitalist ruling class that deliberately used and amplified the racial antagonisms between whites, blacks and native Americans in order to consolidate their rule. (This is why frankly it is extremely strategically stupid for some white socialists here to try to deny or semi-deny racism in America because that will only alienate other ethnic groups and thereby play into the hands of their white capitalist masters perfectly - and if you'd rather ally with the white capitalists than workers of other races, then well you are truly hopeless) Just like the capitalists ruling the world today still employs "divide and rule" strategies against workers based on racial, sexual and cultural lines.

The fact that whites did not live harmoniously with other groups is to be blamed on white capitalism, not anything "intrinsic" in white people's cultural or ethnic character. Cultural essentialism is truly reactionary.

[Peter The Painter]

Actually, in the history of America, poor whites, blacks, and native Americans have grouped together to fight the rich.

Thats why inter racial marrige was banned, because racism is not natural, and laws had to be implemented, and barriers erected, to keep us from uniting.

[hemlock]

Anyone who really believes this (not saying you do of course) is really stupid. Nothing is just "natural" in the "social darwinist" sense for Marxists. Humans are not animals. For humans the socio-economic dimension is always primary.

I absolutely agree. I was illustrating how boneheads and 'boneheads in suits with hair' thing and legitimize their prejudices.


Even for white people, it certainly isn't universally true that whites have never been able to truly unite with other ethnic groups and races. In early colonial America, there were many cases of impoverished white workers and servants, black slaves and native Americans uniting together to fight against their white capitalist bosses. Some white servants even escaped to native American tribes and became one of their tribesmen and never returned to European society. It was the white capitalist ruling class that deliberately used and amplified the racial antagonisms between whites, blacks and native Americans in order to consolidate their rule. (This is why frankly it is extremely strategically stupid for some white socialists here to try to deny or semi-deny racism in America because that will only alienate other ethnic groups and thereby play into the hands of their white capitalist masters perfectly - and if you'd rather ally with the white capitalists than workers of other races, then well you are truly hopeless) Just like the capitalists ruling the world today still employs "divide and rule" strategies against workers based on racial, sexual and cultural lines.

I could not agree more here. You totally nailed the point. Conflict is a system by which the parties involved may not always include a "beneficiary". At least directly.


The fact that whites did not live harmoniously with other groups is to be blamed on white capitalism, not anything "intrinsic" in white people's cultural or ethnic character. Cultural essentialism is truly reactionary.


Actually, in the history of America, poor whites, blacks, and native Americans have grouped together to fight the rich.

Thats why inter racial marrige was banned, because racism is not natural, and laws had to be implemented, and barriers erected, to keep us from uniting.

True. Once that artificial concept of 'race' starts to fall apart, those who benefited from its caste system can no longer easily convince the populous of that systems legitimacy.

[Commiechu]

You mean 'assume the other 57% are racists':).
Your right you can not assume that the remainder are racist. However such views like that help to perprtuate the racism, because if these individuals do not see racism as a problem then how can they combat it within society.

You are right, thanks for correcting my typo :D I think what you are saying is right as well. I believe that indifference to racism is a big factor in its spread.

[Obzervi]

How dare anyone say most whites are racist, this is fucking RACISM, and it is fucking acceptable, because, white people are all imperialist first world babykillers, right?

If i perpetuated racist stereotypes about blacks, i would be banned, but hell, the white proletariat are allowed to be called anything under the fucking sun.

Seriously, this fucking reverse racism is fucking dispicable, as well as white on black racism, seriously, WTF
As I said in another thread, everybody in this society is racist because we were raised and conditioned in a White Supremacist system. If you are white, the first step is to acknowledge you are subconsciously racist. Only then can you embark on a path of anti-racism and social justice. If you fail to accept it, you will just remain a racist with no introspection.

Also there is no such thing as "reverse racism", because racism is defined by power and wealth. I'm convinced that the main way to defeat white supremacy is diversity and tolerance, mainly as the US becomes a white minority country the White Supremacy will lose its power.

[Adi Shankara]

As I said in another thread, everybody in this society is racist because we were raised and conditioned in a White Supremacist system. If you are white, the first step is to acknowledge you are subconsciously racist. Only then can you embark on a path of anti-racism and social justice. If you fail to accept it, you will just remain a racist with no introspection.

I was probably one of a few white kids at my elementary and high school. I'm quite sure that I'm not subconciously racist, seeing as I didn't grow up in the same environment that most anglo-saxons have, and as myself the son of Russian immigrants, I've seen prejudice committed against my family much by other whites and even blacks in this country.

To say that every white person is inherently racist because they all grew up in "this society" (even though I knew more Mexicans and blacks growing up than whites, and the only whites I did know were Russian and Slavic immigrants) is racist in itself.


Also there is no such thing as "reverse racism", because racism is defined by power and wealth.

So what about Hawaii? Japanese people dominate the government, business, and social sectors. would that make whites discriminated there?

[Inciting.Riots]

I really doubt that the majority of white people in the world are racist just as much that I doubt the majority of any race is racist. Yes, that's right, white people are not the only people who can be racist.

Everyone does have prejudices though and anyone who says different who is only lying to themselves. We all have to make judgments about other people all the time some times we just do it more consciously and to a greater degree than other times. I, for example, am prejudice against rapists, pedophiles, racists et al. Not all prejudices are bad or unfounded. :cool:

[Kayser_Soso]

I was probably one of a few white kids at my elementary and high school. I'm quite sure that I'm not subconciously racist, seeing as I didn't grow up in the same environment that most anglo-saxons have, and as myself the son of Russian immigrants, I've seen prejudice committed against my family much by other whites and even blacks in this country.

To say that every white person is inherently racist because they all grew up in "this society" (even though I knew more Mexicans and blacks growing up than whites, and the only whites I did know were Russian and Slavic immigrants) is racist in itself.

Irish, Italians, and Polish were once not considered "white" when they first started immigrating in waves. Russians with accents are also considered "different" enough not to be called "white", but in a single generation their offspring may "become white". Nonetheless, even today it has been found that white-skinned or European immigrants tend to do better than dark-skinned ones.

[9]

Irish, Italians, and Polish were once not considered "white" when they first started immigrating in waves. Russians with accents are also considered "different" enough not to be called "white", but in a single generation their offspring may "become white".

Uh, are you talking about in the US? Because "Russians with accents" are most certainly considered "white" in the US nowadays.

[Kayser_Soso]

Uh, are you talking about in the US? Because "Russians with accents" are most certainly considered "white" in the US nowadays.


He claims to face discrimination or prejudice of some sort, I am explaining why.

[bricolage]

I'm quite sure that I'm not subconciously racist,
Ummm, its subconscious, meaning you can't be sure about it.


To say that every white person is inherently racist because they all grew up in "this society" (even though I knew more Mexicans and blacks growing up than whites, and the only whites I did know were Russian and Slavic immigrants) is racist in itself.
No it isn't.

[Queercommie Girl]

I was probably one of a few white kids at my elementary and high school. I'm quite sure that I'm not subconciously racist, seeing as I didn't grow up in the same environment that most anglo-saxons have, and as myself the son of Russian immigrants, I've seen prejudice committed against my family much by other whites and even blacks in this country.

To say that every white person is inherently racist because they all grew up in "this society" (even though I knew more Mexicans and blacks growing up than whites, and the only whites I did know were Russian and Slavic immigrants) is racist in itself.


You are of East European origin, which is somewhat different.

People of East European origin often face racism by people of West European origin.

Not all "whites" are equal in this system. Even the Nazis formally thought that the Slavic whites were inferior compared with the Germanic and Latin whites.

But the difference is that you can easily pass as a West European, especially if your accent improves, but Black and Asian people can't.

Just like in Japan there is as much racism against Chinese people as there is against Blacks, but I can easily pretend to be a Japanese person if I become really fluent in Japanese language and culture, someone from Nigeria can't.

[GPDP]

I kind of want to get back on the topic of white anxiety. While, as I said earlier in the thread, I don't believe most whites are racist in the open sense, nevertheless I sense there remains a good amount of unease and discomfort among whites when it comes to minorities, except for the ones who "act white," that is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnuZ5sg8VIc

This is kind of a humorous and tremendously simplified look at racism throughout American history, which also portrays whites as cowardly and constantly afraid of everything, going so far as to suggest this fear accounts for their obsession with guns and their escape to gated communities and suburbs. Of course, I won't say all whites are like this, and indeed I doubt most are, but could there nevertheless be a sliver of truth here, wherein part of the fuel that feeds racism is an irrational, debilitating fear of minorities, masked behind a facade of supremacy?

[Adi Shankara]

Uh, are you talking about in the US? Because "Russians with accents" are most certainly considered "white" in the US nowadays.

but yet they still get called "bastard commies", "polacks", are associated with crime in American pop culture, are shown as sneaky, alcoholic, and often, illegal.

[Kayser_Soso]

but yet they still get called "bastard commies", "polacks", are associated with crime in American pop culture, are shown as sneaky, alcoholic, and often, illegal.

Yes but you probably don't get pulled over for being Russian, or searched, or followed around a store.