Racism and privileged class [Archive]

ComradeMan

27th November 2010, 14:31

This is a spinoff of the 'white supremacy' thread where someone mentioned just about anyone can be racist. I have a doubt, and I hope this doesn't turn into a nasty debate.

All this time, I thought only the privileged class (read whites) can be racist. Not saying nonwhites are angels but they lack the power and means. For instance, what people normally call 'reverse racism' is just a reaction to real or perceived injustice rather than actual racism. Likewise, the so-called racism of light-skinned coloreds (light-skinned blacks, Arabs, Indians, Hispanics etc.) toward dark-skinned coloreds is also because they internalize such ideas of supremacy (rather than actual racism).

In short, racism is essentially white against black and other forms are either reactions or born of internalizing white supremacist concepts. Would this conclusion be reasonable?

Again, I am not looking for a fight here, just wish to learn.

Rubbish. To start with you equate white racists with the privileged classes which in my experience is not usually the case. The worst examples of outwards expressions of racism often come from below and not above.
Of course there are reasons for that- but that doesn't change the net result.

Reversed racism, for whatever reason, is still racism. When you start justifying bad behaviour it's a slippery slope. What next? We justify apartheid in South Africa because the Boer people had been oppressed by the British and subjected to a form of racism/discrimination?

In short, racism is essentially white against black and other forms are either reactions or born of internalizing white supremacist concepts. Would this conclusion be reasonable?

No, because they are ahistorical nonsense.

White v Black racism does exist.

But so does Non-white v Non-white, I saw a programme in which a man in Britain involved in race politics since first arriving from the Caribbean noted the high levels of racism between non-whites, in fact I seem to recall there were more complaints to the racial equality board of inter-non-white racism than anything else.

What is anti-Semitism if it is not racism- yet for the most part could you distinguish a European Jewish person from any other European? Excluding perhaps clothing and sidelocks in the case of a rabbi etc? Really?

Racism is racism- full stop/period.

I don't see why you are so desperate to try and prove that racism is essentially a white problem, when it blatantly isn't.

Discrimination of all kinds exists on all levels, it can be because of class, colour/race, religion, gender, orientation, it can be because you have a physical feature, it can be because of weight or looks, it can be because of a whole host of things. It can range from comments and jokes, i.e. all the humiliation people with red hair or fat people get, to the severe end of the scale with institutionalised racism and genocide. But it's all discrimination based on immutable characteristics and it's wrong. It has happened in all societies since time immemorial.

Racism is one perhaps one of the nastier forms of discrimination in that it has led to the worst kinds of human oppression and genocide, but it is still part of the same shit mentality that puts the adjective above the person.

Now- getting back to India- are there seriously no racist words in any Indian language for "others"?

RGacky3

27th November 2010, 14:52

There is a big big difference, between personal racism, i.e. "I don't like those people beceause they are different from me," and institutional racism, i.e. these people are the rulers of society, and those people are the underclass, due to race.

Now the first type is distasteful, ignorant and really terrible, but it does'nt really concern me, its not tha big of a deal if some redneck hates black people, but does'nt do anything, thats just his ignorance.

THe second type is the big problem, historically, overall, worldwide, european white people were the privileged race, due to imeprialism colonial and so forth.

so racism can exist in a personal level for everyone, anyone can be racist personally, but thatsa not the racism that really matters in the big picture.

Racism institutionally can theoretically also exist for everyone, however historically, and now, its almsot mostly, a white persons game. Thats the stuff that really matters in the big picture.

ComradeMan

27th November 2010, 16:53

There is a big big difference, between personal racism, i.e. "I don't like those people beceause they are different from me," and institutional racism, i.e. these people are the rulers of society, and those people are the underclass, due to race..

No there isn't- not really. The one feeds of the other. But actually the upper echelons of society, regardless of colour, usually are less racist towards members of their own class but of a different colour than they may be classist to someone of their own colour but a different class. I see Her Majesty gets on well with the Arab Sheikhs and they all love polo and racehorses. Indian Maharajahs got on quite well with the British upper classes in the end, they all went to Eton!!! :laugh:

Now the first type is distasteful, ignorant and really terrible, but it does'nt really concern me, its not tha big of a deal if some redneck hates black people, but does'nt do anything, thats just his ignorance..

How stupid can you be? If the first type of distatsteful and ignorant bigotry had not existed in Germany with anti-Semitism then Hitler would not have had an audience would he?

THe second type is the big problem, historically, overall, worldwide, european white people were the privileged race, due to imeprialism colonial and so forth..

Which European white people? The serfs? The peasants? The people who revolted in the French Revolution? The Russians? The English rebels who were sent as slaves to the West Indies?

Yet more rubbish from you- sweeping generalisations. Have you ever read human documents of the Industrial Revolution?

What about my "white" ancestors who lived in practical feudal serfdom under the "latifondistas" until relatively recently.

The European bourgeois, the merchant classes and the aristocracy have always had their asses in the wealth, just like other societies too.

You're beginning to sound like a "historical" Third Worldist.

True, we could look at US segregation, we could look at apartheid in South Africa or alleged apartheid in South America- but you could also look at the actual fate of people in Europe too- like the million Irish who starved to death for example- they were white and privileged according to your idiotic generalisations.

so racism can exist in a personal level for everyone, anyone can be racist personally, but thatsa not the racism that really matters in the big picture..

All forms of discrimination and prejudice matter- WTF are you doing here?

Racism institutionally can theoretically also exist for everyone, however historically, and now, its almsot mostly, a white persons game. Thats the stuff that really matters in the big picture.

It's mostly a white person's game- you are an idiot and you are inadvertently subscribing to a racial stereotype.

Racism not only exists theoretically for everyone- it exists a lot in practice.

What about Japanese racism? You've left that one out for example...

RGacky3

27th November 2010, 17:14

No there isn't- not really. The one feeds of the other. But actually the upper echelons of society, regardless of colour, usually are less racist towards members of their own class but of a different colour than they may be classist to someone of their own colour but a different class. I see Her Majesty gets on well with the Arab Sheikhs and they all love polo and racehorses. Indian Maharajahs got on quite well with the British upper classes in the end, they all went to Eton!!! :laugh:

Your absolutely right, they bleed over, but institutional racism is tied in with classism, but there is a difference between the 2, obviously they are related, but they are 2 seperate phenomenons.

How stupid can you be? If the first type of distatsteful and ignorant bigotry had not existed in Germany with anti-Semitism then Hitler would not have had an audience would he?

Your right, in that case personal racism became institutionalized, hell, it was institutionalized from the begining, the history of europe is racism against jews, Germany did'nt happen in a bubble.

Which European white people? The serfs? The peasants? The people who revolted in the French Revolution? The Russians? The English rebels who were sent as slaves to the West Indies?

Yet more rubbish from you- sweeping generalisations. Have you ever read human documents of the Industrial Revolution?

What about my "white" ancestors who lived in practical feudal serfdom under the "latifondistas" until relatively recently.

The European bourgeois, the merchant classes and the aristocracy have always had their asses in the wealth, just like other societies too.

Once colonialism was in full swing, it was really all white people, internall in europe obviously you have class divisions, but in the big scheme of things, overall, even a poor white person was looked upon with more respect then a black person of a similar background.

True, we could look at US segregation, we could look at apartheid in South Africa or alleged apartheid in South America- but you could also look at the actual fate of people in Europe too- like the million Irish who starved to death for example- they were white and privileged according to your idiotic generalisations.

Did I ever say that European poor people are not oppressed, that poor whites are not exploited and don't suffer? Did I say that?

All forms of discrimination and prejudice matter- WTF are you doing here?

A guy who's just a dick is a problem, but its not a huge problem, a dick in power is a realy problem, thats what I"m saying.

It's mostly a white person's game- you are an idiot and you are inadvertently subscribing to a racial stereotype.

Racism not only exists theoretically for everyone- it exists a lot in practice.

What about Japanese racism? You've left that one out for example...

Japanese racism also exists, and is improtant, and Japan was an imperial power at one point, BUT, WORLD WIDE, OVERALL, most imperialism has been european, which is why I said "mostly." Calm down man.

ComradeMan

27th November 2010, 17:23

Your absolutely right, they bleed over, but institutional racism is tied in with classism, but there is a difference between the 2, obviously they are related, but they are 2 seperate phenomenons.

You can't separate phenomena such as these so easily, it's like trying to separate the fruit from the tree.

Once colonialism was in full swing, it was really all white people, internall in europe obviously you have class divisions, but in the big scheme of things, overall, even a poor white person was looked upon with more respect then a black person of a similar background.

Where is your evidence for this? I would say that a poor white person was looked upon with equal contempt by the powers-that-were and perhaps with more fear and suspicion, these were the people at home who could rebel too.

But you were talking about privilege.

Did I ever say that European poor people are not oppressed, that poor whites are not exploited and don't suffer? Did I say that?

You were talking about privilege and you made a sweeping generalisation about white europeans being privileged.

A guy who's just a dick is a problem, but its not a huge problem, a dick in power is a realy problem, thats what I"m saying.

Yeah but put all of those single guys together and you have an army of Nazis. It is a problem.

Japanese racism also exists, and is improtant, and Japan was an imperial power at one point, BUT, WORLD WIDE, OVERALL, most imperialism has been european, which is why I said "mostly." Calm down man.

Chinese Imperialism, Indian Imperialism, Japanese Imperialism, Ottoman Imperialism, Arab Expansionism and Imperialism, African tribal Imperialism, the Zulu for example. Ethiopian Amarhic Imperialism. Then Persian Imperialism in the classical age, the Khmer Empire too, don't forget that. Babylonian/Semitic Imperialism, Egyptian Imperialism.

So basically no.

The Europeans were relatively late to catch on.

We had Roman Imperialism, but mostly limited to Europe, N.Africa and the Near East, I suppose.

Even by saying European imperialism- who? Where? Spain, Portugal, England, France, Holland, Belgium briefly, and Italy- made a laughing stock of themselves. This was over a maximum of 400 years at most.

The problem with your analyses is that they are far too simplistic, you use sweeping generalisation all over the place and you rely on common "notions" without substantiating them- or even attempting to.

Fulanito de Tal

27th November 2010, 17:39

Revolution starts with U

27th November 2010, 17:40

Comrade, were this not the internet and you talked to me like you are talking to Gacky, you would be found in a pool of blood on the side of the road. Just lettin you kno :D
Tone it down a notch

Lt. Ferret

27th November 2010, 17:47

Racism the real oppression of a group of people carried out by another group based on race. Race is a classification based mostly on skin color and location of where genes were developed (Asia, Africa, Arab Peninsula, etc.), although culture plays a small factor. In order to be racist, a group of people has to hold the power to oppress the other group. In the US, the Black community CANNOT be racist. They do not have the means to oppress the White community.

A white person hating black people is contributing to racism: the oppression of black people. A black person hating white people is NOT racism; he is not contributing to the oppression of white people because that oppression does not exist. And, in my opinion, that black person is having a very understandable reaction to the oppression caused by white people.

this is ridiculous and much too generalized. iv lived in a black neighborhood. im mostly white and my wife is arab. we were not in any sense able (nor willing of course) to oppress our black neighbors. i dont even know how that would take form.

now, my house was repeatedly attempted to be broken into, and ill make the leap that it was one of my neighbors. in this neighborhood's social system, i was certainly not at the top of it. if i left this system and entered another one, say in rural georgia or rural louisiana, it may change, but urban columbus georgia, i wasnt king of white guy mountain.

Fulanito de Tal

27th November 2010, 17:54

this is ridiculous and much too generalized. iv lived in a black neighborhood. im mostly white and my wife is arab. we were not in any sense able (nor willing of course) to oppress our black neighbors. i dont even know how that would take form.

now, my house was repeatedly attempted to be broken into, and ill make the leap that it was one of my neighbors. in this neighborhood's social system, i was certainly not at the top of it. if i left this system and entered another one, say in rural georgia or rural louisiana, it may change, but urban columbus georgia, i wasnt king of white guy mountain.

Assuming your house was repeated broken into because you were white, then that would be discrimination. But, it doesn't mean that the white community was oppressed because your house was broken into.

Milk Sheikh

27th November 2010, 17:59

Reznov

27th November 2010, 18:08

Comrade, were this not the internet and you talked to me like you are talking to Gacky, you would be found in a pool of blood on the side of the road. Just lettin you kno :D
Tone it down a notch

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Ah man, "Leftist Mercenaries" who will leave people in a "pool of blood".

You just gotta laugh at some of the stuff you see on RevLeft. :laugh:

Reznov

27th November 2010, 18:16

I'll give an example to make this privilege thing easy to understand. An Indian billionaire (at the time this incident occurred, he was the third richest man in the world) was harassed at the US airport. Why?

In sharp contrast, even a poor white person cannot be harassed at the airport. Again, why? Think before you answer. Unless we accept the 'white privilege' concept, this sort of inconsistency can never be explained.

I, am considered white in America (lived here my whole life). But when I visitied famly in Syria and was getting ready to board my plane to return to the U.S., I was stopped and searched, and then asked my birthplace by someone who would have also been considered white in America.

It turns out this person was Jewish and was asking because he knew I was Syrian.

And It can be explained, how do you know that person wasn't having a bad day and felt like being an asshole? How do you know he just wasn't following precaution? Maybe he is a little racist, now all Whites are oppressors in society?

I've been pulled over by a cop because he thought I was doing something bad, does that mean every cop is out to enforce White Supremacy? I think he was just being an asshole since he thinks he is entitled to getting "respect" because of a badge on his shirt.

And that cop was Hispanic.

Leftists need to stop trying to explain this racially. This isn't stormfront. Racism as we see it is the result of Capitalism and if we get rid of Capitalism, we will get rid of the symptoms (poor and rich, discrimination in all its forms.)

apawllo

27th November 2010, 18:20

I fully accept that white privilege exists, but I also often wonder what exactly we're all supposed to do with that knowledge aside from oppose the existing power structure. This is not an attempt to marginalize the issue but an honest observation...if anyone has any ideas I'd like to hear them.

Manic Impressive

27th November 2010, 18:24

Imperialism of any kind is not motivated by racial differences, it is motivated by profit. The difference is that race was used as an excuse to justify imperialism this is not exclusive to European cultures but is where it is most prevalent.
Racism amongst the working classes is easily explained if we look at the UK as an example after world war two the reserve pool of labour was depleted at a time when industry was expanding so there was less competition for jobs, this also means that competition for workers increases which means wages and conditions must rise. So to solve this problem immigration from the Caribbean was encouraged this had a negative effect on the job prospects of the already poor white working class. Now instead of analysing the problem properly and blaming capitalism most chose to blame the new members of their class. A few years later and there was an influx of immigration from the Indian sub continent and Asians coming from Africa again damaging the working class but this time not only the whites but black community as well this raised racial tensions further. If you don't believe me just ask some of the black guys I know who used to go out "paki bashing".

That's just a brief and recent account of race in Britain but it went back much further the Irish were subject to the same conditions for the previous 800 years not to mention the other European immigrants many of them Jewish who were also persecuted this had nothing to do with the colour of their skin it had to do with the number of poor people increasing in a society which thrives on the competition of labour and resources. This is only good for one class the ruling class and they are well aware of it.

Micheal Parenti - Race, Gender and class struggle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KAi7X4wOvo

ComradeMan

27th November 2010, 18:40

Racism the real oppression of a group of people carried out by another group based on race. Race is a classification based mostly on skin color and location of where genes were developed (Asia, Africa, Arab Peninsula, etc.), although culture plays a small factor. In order to be racist, a group of people has to hold the power to oppress the other group. In the US, the Black community CANNOT be racist. They do not have the means to oppress the White community.

A white person hating black people is contributing to racism: the oppression of black people. A black person hating white people is NOT racism; he is not contributing to the oppression of white people because that oppression does not exist. And, in my opinion, that black person is having a very understandable reaction to the oppression caused by white people.

More bullshit.

Race is a social construct to start with.

You're confusing institutionalised racism with racism, they are not synonymous.

A black person hating people on the basis of their skin colour.... is.... err.... a racist prick just as much as a white person.

Contributing to oppression is not a de facto prerequisite of being a bigot.

Hell, the Nazis accused the Jews of contributing to the oppression of the German people....

Any form of discrimination and xenophobia is wrong.

"In the US, the Black community CANNOT be racist. They do not have the means to oppress the White community."

What about that nutcase guy who may still be on Youtube who was ranting about exterminating white people? Was he not a racist?

You are an idiot. BTW the whole fucking world isn't America-

ComradeMan

27th November 2010, 18:41

Comrade, were this not the internet and you talked to me like you are talking to Gacky, you would be found in a pool of blood on the side of the road. Just lettin you kno :D
Tone it down a notch

Fuck off. You'd be too bloated from your Big Macs probably.... And when Gacky can't piece together any form of argument and then starts insulting people, well- he gets what he gives.

EDIT:- I have received a 20 point infraction for this post- at this time 22:12 Italian time, no log has been made in the Admin/Mods actions section of the Members Forum. The infraction was for prejudiced language. It seems whereas I was being derided the other day for pointing out that using "fattist" language was not okay- now, Best Mod and Co have decided to give me an infraction, I presume for the word bloated. I wonder if Best Mod will go back and infract all the other examples of hate speech, including the "fattist" comments from the other day. I would also like to point out to Best Mod, I'm sorry, if English is not my first language, but saying "You'd be too bloated from your Big Macs"- does not imply being fat- it implies being stuffed full, not able to move or do anything- but I am sure he knows that... ;) I wonder if others who have insulted my mother- and used words like "fatso slob turd" will also be infracted their posts are still there if they don't go back and edit them quickly.

EDIT:- Thanks to the anonymous coward who neg repped the post with you're a "fatty mcturdblob, fatso"- someone too spineless to even reveal themselves.

EDIT:- Apparantly the now demodded Best Mod has logged this "hella of an aggressive post"- as the reason for the infraction- an infraction with no expiry either- he seems to have failed to notice that the quote was by another member and this was a reply. Of course he is no longer a mod, so conveniently nothing can be done about it.

Milk Sheikh

27th November 2010, 18:47

Is comrademan's account compromised? The last half a dozen posts, he's been extremely vulgar and offensive. I compared them with his earlier posts; they were somewhat different. What's going on?

Manic Impressive

27th November 2010, 19:03

No Comrademan's account should not be compromised I see nothing wrong with his posts. But perhaps Revolution starts with U and Dougal McSprayfarts accounts should be. And perhaps you should re-examine your own stance as you are taking an unscientific view not based on class analysis to justify your illogical unfounded hatred for white people. Your views are offensive and based on prejudice which guess what it's racism.

Ele'ill

27th November 2010, 19:25

Fuck off. You'd be too bloated from your Big Macs probably.... And when Gacky can't piece together any form of argument and then starts insulting people, well- he gets what he gives.

You're being really childish.

Manic Impressive

27th November 2010, 19:28

Fulanito de Tal

27th November 2010, 19:28

More bullshit.

Race is a social construct to start with.

Your confusing institutionalised racism with racism, they are not synonymous.

A black person hating people on the basis of their skin colour.... is.... err.... a racist prick just as much as a white person.

Contributing to oppression is not a de facto prerequisite of being a bigot.

Hell, the Nazis accused the Jews of contributing to the oppression of the German people....

Any form of discrimination and xenophobia is wrong.

"In the US, the Black community CANNOT be racist. They do not have the means to oppress the White community."

What about that nutcase guy who may still be on Youtube who was ranting about exterminating white people? Was he not a racist?

You are an idiot. BTW the whole fucking world isn't America-

Oh, okay. Now that you called me an idiot, I see your point. :thumbdown:

Ele'ill

27th November 2010, 19:31

Mari3l he was responding to this.

That's justified or explainable given Comrademan's other comments in several other threads.

Revolution starts with U

27th November 2010, 19:36

Manic Impressive

27th November 2010, 19:42

I am taking no unscientific stance. I don't believe race exists at all, other than as a social construct. What I jumped in here was to tell Comrade to stop acting like an internet tough guy. He knows damn well he wouldn't talk like that to someone in real life. So stop doing it behind a veil of anonymity.
Most of my comment was not directed at you but even if you feel that his comments were out of order you should not respond in kind as you loose all justification when you threaten somebody you also give him reason to have a go at you back.

@Mari3l perhaps I missed something but I don't venture into OI that much.

#FF0000

27th November 2010, 19:55

Bud Struggle

27th November 2010, 20:03

Are you fucking serious here? After all your fucking whining about someone else being a "fattist"? Yeah, fuck you, kid.

Infraction

Best Mod--I have no problem with mods giving infractions-- but NEVER in a thread they have a personal arguement in.

You should give yourself an infraction, too.

Sepaeate you personal convictions from your Modship--but with a name like "Best Mod in Revleft History" that may be difficult to do.

Dude, you have to seperate the "job" from the poster.

One of the reasons this place never gets oof of the ground is it's crappy Mod and Admin system. (No offense guys--but when you get MAD you act like a bunch of 12 year olds.)

apawllo

27th November 2010, 20:04

#FF0000

27th November 2010, 20:04

Best Mod--I have no problem with mods giving infractions-- but NEVER in a thread they have a personal arguement in.

You should give yourself an infraction, too.

Sepaeate you personal convictions from your Modship--but with a name like "Best Mod in Revleft History" that may be difficult to do.

Dude, you have to seperate the "job" from the poster.

One of the reasons this place never gets oof of the ground is it's crappy Mod and Admin system. (No offense guys--but when you get MAD you act like a bunch of 12 year olds.)

I don't have an argument in this thread and the post CM got his infraction over has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It is flat out flaming and what hits me is the gall of CM to go around and post something like that after whining about it himself for pages in another thread.

The Red Next Door

27th November 2010, 20:10

I have friends who are white and they been beat up because of their color by stupid assholes in the neighborhood. how should that be viewed?

#FF0000

27th November 2010, 20:12

I have friends who are white and they been beat up because of their color by stupid assholes in the neighborhood. how should that be viewed?

That is discrimination. Not racism according to the definition used when people say "black people can't be racist".

McDougal was spot-on earlier in this thread, but I think the thing is here that people have different definitions of racism.

The Red Next Door

27th November 2010, 20:15

That is discrimination. Not racism according to the definition used when people say "black people can't be racist".

McDougal was spot-on earlier in this thread, but I think the thing is here that people have different definitions of racism.

Anybody can be racist; right?

Bud Struggle

27th November 2010, 20:17

I don't have an argument in this thread and the post CM got his infraction over has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It is flat out flaming and what hits me is the gall of CM to go around and post something like that after whining about it himself for pages in another thread.

You are INVOLVED. Look at the stats--I bet you gave 10 times more infractions on OI than than the actual MOD of the place.

This place is getting WAY TOO fucking personal. It's you and ME and CM Marli3L and some others.

My fault, too but we should all take this down a notch.

#FF0000

27th November 2010, 20:20

You are INVOLVED. Look at the stats--I bet you gave 10 times more infractions on OI than than the actual MOD of the place.

This place is getting WAY TOO fucking personal. It's you and ME and CM Marli3L and some others.

My fault, too but we should all take this down a notch.

This infraction was not personal though. I gave him a warning in another thread, and the next step is an infraction, especially for such blatant flaming.

And I think I hand out more infractions in learning tbh.

#FF0000

27th November 2010, 20:22

Anybody can be racist; right?

Depends on the definition you're using. Anybody can be bigoted against someone of a different race, but not all races can be systematically discriminated against.

McDougal's using the latter definition, and in that case, in the West, black people cannot be racist because they are not in control of society. In the West, the vast majority of people with power are White.

This doesn't mean all white people are bad and racist. But it does mean that the black community is at a disadvantage.

So, yeah, anybody can have a racial bias but by certain definitions not everyone can be "racist".

Budguy68

27th November 2010, 20:34

Simply put

People have being programmed to have the belief that all races are the same in everyway except for skin color and physical features.

Thus they expect all races to produce equal results.

So when they see gaps in education, income, human development amongst different races they automatically come to the conclusion that this happened due to instutiationalize racism and discrimination. Then they blame YT. You see this happen all the time amongst left wingers.

Leftwingers are all about making things equal by brining down the "privillaged" and bringing up the "oppressed" race.

This pisses off rightwinged YTs and make leftwing YTs feel guilty.

#FF0000

27th November 2010, 20:38

Revolution starts with U

27th November 2010, 20:39

Point me to a credible piece of evidence that blacks are naturally stupider than whites. Or that chinese are natually the smartest of all. Or that blacks are the fastest.

Budguy68

27th November 2010, 20:48

Except that all races are the same in every way except for skin color and physical features.

Are you telling me that certain races are naturally more or less intelligent or physically capable or something like that?

I did not know this.

I really want you to answer this question then. Why are the majority of players in the NBA blacks then?

#FF0000

27th November 2010, 20:53

I did not know this.

I really want you to answer this question then. Why are the majority of players in the NBA blacks then?

I don't know. Maybe because basketball is hella popular in the big cities where a lot of black people live?

Are you telling me that black people have a natural affinity to playing basketball?

I mean goddamn it's been a long, long time since I've had someone come out and say "I am a racist" so boldly without knowing that they're a racist.

#FF0000

27th November 2010, 20:57

Oh that says it all. I google "BudGuy68" and I find he's a member of an absolutely disgusting racist website that is not stormfront. Awesome.

Revolution starts with U

27th November 2010, 20:59

I've beat many blacks in one-on one, lost to many as well. Same for whites. My ad hoc evidence is better than yours ;)
In reality their are a myriad reasons why pro sports are heavily populated by blacks. Not the least of which is that it's much easier to dedicate yourself to basketball, than to being a doctor. Especially if you grew up in a crap neighborhood with crap schools and a not-so-empowering culture.
basically, it's easier to go to medical school when someone can pay your tuition and rent :D

Revolution starts with U

27th November 2010, 21:01

Ad hoc evidene is rarely credible but..

I've beat many blacks in one-on one, lost to many as well. Same for whites. My ad hoc evidence is better than yours ;)
In reality their are a myriad reasons why pro sports are heavily populated by blacks. Not the least of which is that it's much easier to dedicate yourself to basketball, than to being a doctor. Especially if you grew up in a crap neighborhood with crap schools and a not-so-empowering culture.
basically, it's easier to go to medical school when someone can pay your tuition and rent :D

Revolution starts with U

27th November 2010, 21:03

double post. somthing's wrong w my computer :blushing:

Ele'ill

27th November 2010, 21:06

double post. somthing's wrong w my computer :blushing:

It's not your computer- the forum is running a bit slow

Revolution starts with U

27th November 2010, 21:08

ahh. i see :laugh:

Ele'ill

27th November 2010, 21:10

ahh. i see :laugh:

Yeah, what a useless website that is. :lol:

Skooma Addict

27th November 2010, 21:16

#FF0000

27th November 2010, 21:18

You can't just make up random definitions of racism. Obviously anyone can be a racist. I was under the impression that this fell under the category of common knowledge.

It isn't a "made up" definition. That is the sociological definition of racism.

Skooma Addict

27th November 2010, 21:23

It isn't a "made up" definition. That is the sociological definition of racism.

Not a definition I have ever heard of....Can you provide an outside source?

Also, under this "definition", A white person with belief A is a racist, but a black person with belief A is not a racist. In this case ones beliefs on race do not determine whether or not one is a racist.

I am not sure what is wrong with the normal dictionary definition. The definition that actually makes sense and the one everyone uses.

#FF0000

27th November 2010, 21:28

I hate to use Wikipedia but they have a lot of examples and citations for this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Sociological

EDIT: Also want to point out that not everyone uses it in this way. Like I said the problem here is semantic and we all basically agree.

Fulanito de Tal

27th November 2010, 21:31

You can't just make up random definitions of racism. Obviously anyone can be a racist. I was under the impression that this fell under the category of common knowledge.

The definition I proposed is not random. It is a direct and purposeful definition that uses a macro perspective of racism.

Skooma Addict

27th November 2010, 21:41

Hmm. Yea I don't know why I never though of checking Wiki...

But I don't think the issue is semantic because this

"culturally sanctioned beliefs, which, regardless of intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have because of the subordinated position of racial minorities”.

Is totally different from this

[/URL]Racism is the belief that the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics"]genetic factors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#cite_note-Wellman-7) which constitute race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28classification_of_human_beings%29) are a primary determinant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism) of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_complex) of a particular race.

(Both from Wiki)

The latter is obviously more scientific and it is the definition people should (and do) use. If someone holds beliefs which would be racist according the the second definition, then they are going to be considered a racist by almost everyone.

Skooma Addict

27th November 2010, 21:46

The definition I proposed is not random. It is a direct and purposeful definition that uses a macro perspective of racism.

I assume you are referring to this.

Racism the real oppression of a group of people carried out by another group based on race. Race is a classification based mostly on skin color and location of where genes were developed (Asia, Africa, Arab Peninsula, etc.), although culture plays a small factor. In order to be racist, a group of people has to hold the power to oppress the other group. In the US, the Black community CANNOT be racist. They do not have the means to oppress the White community.

Under your definition, black people in the U.S. can be racist. A group of black people can go and oppress a white person. A group of people would have the power to do that if they really wanted to.

What exactly do you find wrong with the normal definition? The definition where a persons beliefs on race determine whether or not one is a racist. The one that is logical and actually makes sense.

ComradeMan

27th November 2010, 21:47

I can't believe some of the rubbish that has been posted here.

Institutionalised racism, i.e. discrimination is the result of racism, not the other way around. The people who beat up the guy because of his colour were racists- they weren't discriminating against him institutionally were they? They probably aren't in a position to, so their racially motivated attack on him was based on race-hatred.

that's...

racism....

duh!

revolution inaction

27th November 2010, 21:49

Oh that says it all. I google "BudGuy68" and I find he's a member of an absolutely disgusting racist website that is not stormfront. Awesome.

you mean http://niggermania.net/forum/member.php?1844-Budguy68 ?

27 Mar 2010 ... Nigger jokes and nigger bashing forum. Niggermania.

Ele'ill

27th November 2010, 21:53

Yes

Manic Impressive

27th November 2010, 22:34

I think most people here probably realize that most racial constructs that exist right now are a result of the capitalist system, but again...the blame game isn't helping to solve anything. Marginalizing the issue isn't going to rid of the remnants of the colonial caste systems that exist in most parts of the world. It hasn't in Cuba or Venezuela, and it won't anywhere else. Like I said before, if anyone has any ideas, feel free...
Unfortunately I disagree I am shocked by the attitude of some leftyists who have become completely blinded by their political identity. Playing that game is a rejection of class analysis.

Cuba and Venezuela still have capitalism and scarcity in their society. I don't think racism can be eradicated until we solve that problem but we can make a start by not generalizing people by their race comments like "all whites are racist" and "no black people can be racist" are damaging and causes disunity amongst people of their class.

Manic Impressive

27th November 2010, 22:42

ComradeMan

27th November 2010, 22:49

How about one example from law...

British Race Relations Act 1976.

1.
Racial discrimination.
(1) A person discriminates against another in any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision of this Act if—
(a)
on racial grounds he treats that other less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons; or

(b)
he applies to that other a requirement or condition which he applies or would apply equally to persons not of the same racial group as that other but—

(i) which is such that the proportion of persons of the same racial group as that other who can comply with it is considerably smaller than the proportion of persons not of that racial group who can comply with it; and

(ii) which he cannot show to be justifiable irrespective of the colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins of the person to whom it is applied; and

(iii) which is to the detriment of that other because he cannot comply with it.

3. Meaning of “racial grounds", “racial group" etc.
— (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires— “racial grounds" means any of the following grounds, namely colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins;

“racial group" means a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins, and references to a person’s racial group refer to any racial group into which he falls.

Nothing in that about it only being white vs black, a one way street.

Seeing as people are using Wiki as definition of racism,

perhaps they should also note this---

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Ambox_content.pngThe verifiability of all or part of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.
This article or section has been tagged since October 2010.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Unbalanced_scales.svg/45px-Unbalanced_scales.svg.png (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/File:Unbalanced_scales.svg)The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (October 2010)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Acap.svg/36px-Acap.svg.png (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/File:Acap.svg)This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. You can assist by editing it. (October 2010)

Agnapostate

27th November 2010, 22:59

Institutional racism is obviously more problematic, because while whites now possess limited abilities to discriminate against non-whites with de jure policies of governmental organs, there is still discrimination in de facto implementation (i.e. racial profiling by law enforcement and the nature of the criminal injustice system), as well as abundant racial discrimination in labor markets, housing, etc. The only places where anti-white institutional racism might be said to exist are where anti-colonialist sentiment has been taken too far, such as Zimbabwe (aside from the fact that the government is Shona supremacist, not black supremacist), and even that is a reaction to instigatory white aggression.

White racism, in its more explicit forms, also draws on a foundation of beliefs and literature from academics who promote the idea of blacks' genetically inherited mental inferiority to whites, such as J. Phillipe Rushton and Arthur Jensen, and various other racist or semi-racist agendas from a number of social scientists, such as the philosopher Michael Levin, the late political scientist Samuel Huntington, etc. Extreme white racism is firmly set against "miscegenation," and its proponents typically abhor even the slightest physical contact with non-whites, so their hatred of inter-racial sexual relations is obviously intense. The obsession of white supremacists with "purity" culminates in their absurd "one-drop rules." Non-whites, so often being mixed-race, obviously cannot logically replicate this stance. While there is a "black supremacist" tendency that espouses pseudo-scientific doctrines like melanin theory, they are a minority in the black nationalist movement, which is opposed to whites inasmuch as they occupy the role of oppressors, not because of some inherent genetic defect.

Even in the casual, informal sense, white racism is likely to be top-down and non-white racism bottom-up, with white racists regarding non-whites as an undesirable underclass and contributors to social ills and non-white racists regarding whites as upper class oppressors. We seek to chop the top and elevate the lower classes.

ComradeMan

27th November 2010, 23:06

Still racism though isn't it champ?

Manic Impressive

27th November 2010, 23:10

Even in the casual, informal sense, white racism is likely to be top-down and non-white racism bottom-up, with white racists regarding non-whites as an undesirable underclass and contributors to social ills and non-white racists regarding whites as upper class oppressors. We seek to chop the top and elevate the lower classes.
So we should condone and maybe encourage any other form of racism other than racism by white people? because the people not enforcing racism are not bourgeois?

ComradeMan

27th November 2010, 23:16

So we should condone and maybe encourage any other form of racism other than racism by white people?

Don't bother- this is just a complete load of bullshit that no one outside the US even subscribes to.

Racism is racism plain and simple- as soon as you start trying to intellectualise it and perhaps justify it on the one hand and not on the other etc, then you lose any moral force you may have had and turn yourself into a hypocritical laughing stock.

In South Africa, under apartheid- there were Whites and Japanese with full rights as whites, then Indians, Mixed-race people "Coloureds" as they were called and Chinese, and then at the bottom of the heap with basically no rights there were black Africans.

Now- were the Indians, Chinese and "Coloureds" not oppressed because technically black people were oppressed more? Were Far Eastern people oppressed or not-oppressed?

You see can't just apply these schemes so it's better not to apply them at all.

Anyone can be a racist prick, the fact that some groups may have been more racist than others doesn't exonerate other people or exclude them from being racists too.

apawllo

27th November 2010, 23:39

Unfortunately I disagree I am shocked by the attitude of some leftyists who have become completely blinded by their political identity. Playing that game is a rejection of class analysis.

Cuba and Venezuela still have capitalism and scarcity in their society. I don't think racism can be eradicated until we solve that problem but we can make a start by not generalizing people by their race comments like "all whites are racist" and "no black people can be racist" are damaging and causes disunity amongst people of their class.

That's the point though. You can't just say "stop doing that" and expect people to stop. There's a reason why people have these thought processes. It's culturally embedded over generations...it's taught and learned. This is something that isn't going away quickly. And with that wall between races, in diverse nations such as the US for example, we really don't stand a chance. So, again...any suggestions?

Skooma Addict

28th November 2010, 00:00

Do people here consider affirmative action to be institutional racism?

Manic Impressive

28th November 2010, 00:16

That's the point though. You can't just say "stop doing that" and expect people to stop. There's a reason why people have these thought processes. It's culturally embedded over generations...it's taught and learned. This is something that isn't going away quickly. And with that wall between races, in diverse nations such as the US for example, we really don't stand a chance. So, again...any suggestions?
Well if no-one had said stop doing that we probably still would be doing it, well some still haven't got the message so we have to keep telling them and educating them as to why it's wrong.

regarding affirmative action it's a terrible idea which further drives a wedge between the working class. It's a solution which does not solve the problem but makes it worse, which is what most reforms are in a capitalist system. It's like if you have a wound that turns gangrenous and you try to fix it by putting a band aid on it.

#FF0000

28th November 2010, 00:22

Do people here consider affirmative action to be institutional racism?

No because it helps disadvantaged groups.

Skooma Addict

28th November 2010, 00:34

No because it helps disadvantaged groups.

Would a wealthy black person benefit from AA? I am not familiar with the ins and outs of affirmative action.

To say that all black people or all women or all Asians are disadvantaged is a massive over generalization. Maybe you were saying that AA helps disadvantaged people in the sense that it helps poor black people and you were discounting the fact that it helps wealthy ones as well (assuming it does). This is fine, but then you kind of lose the argument that AA helps the disadvantaged. Also, AA would be helping privileged people of race X at the expense of underprivileged people of race Y. It would also help underprivileged people of race X at the expense of underprivileged people of race Y.

This is all assuming I understand AA correctly, so correct me if I am wrong.

Agnapostate

28th November 2010, 00:55

Still racism though isn't it champ?

Yes, that's right. Since you've chosen to focus on the semantics of the term rather than concrete analysis of the actual phenomena that I described, though, I'll have to assume that you're in agreement with me on that topic, champ.

So we should condone and maybe encourage any other form of racism other than racism by white people? because the people not enforcing racism are not bourgeois?

First of all, I've probably erred in even accepting the dichotomy between "whites" and "non-whites," since racial discrimination occurs with far more sophistication, such as de jure discrimination of "whites" against other "whites," such as the historical policies against the immigration of Irish and southern and eastern Europeans, with the stigma of southern Europeans' mixed-blooded status being an element of the bigotry expressed against them, the opposite phenomenon of mixed-blooded "whites" discriminating against more pure-blooded "whites," such as the Franco regime's enforcement of Castilian ethno-cultural dominance over Catalans and Basques, etc.

But in answer to that question, some racism may accompany anti-colonialist sentiment, simply because of the fact that associative learning is a trait of human psychology, and when the upper class elites are seen to typically possess a certain phenotype, that phenotype becomes associated with elitism. (Classical conditioning isn't really the proper term for this phenomenon, but the most effective one that I as a non-specialist can think of). Let's consider this article: Indian movement seeks 'to expel white invasion' (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/jun/23/20050623-112430-1607r/)

SANTA CRUZ, Bolivia -- A growing indigenous movement has helped topple successive governments in Bolivia and Ecuador and, angered by the destruction of Andean coca crops, now threatens the stability of other countries where Indians are in the majority.

Drawing support from European leftists and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, the long-marginalized Indians are tasting political influence for the first time since the Spanish conquest and beginning to wrest power from South America's white elites.

The leader of Bolivia's Movement to Socialism party (MAS), Evo Morales, talks about "uniting Latin America's 135 Indian nations to expel the white invasion, which began with the landing of Columbus in 1492."

The anti-colonialist and anti-capitalist public opinions should be expressed in terms of class, but class overlaps with racial stratification, and as a result, race is associated with upper class membership. Ideally, that shouldn't be, since whites can and will "be John Browns," and it's perhaps a matter of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but from a different perspective, is cracking some eggs to make an omelet. Real-world practices rarely unfold as people idealize them, and if the revolutionary liberation of a country with some kind of apartheid structure, formal or informal, required an environment of hostility that encouraged the ethnic group that dominated the ruling class to emigrate, so be it. The consequences of that are preferable to those that would exist without any kind of revolutionary upheaval.

Don't bother- this is just a complete load of bullshit that no one outside the US even subscribes to.

Racism is racism plain and simple- as soon as you start trying to intellectualise it and perhaps justify it on the one hand and not on the other etc, then you lose any moral force you may have had and turn yourself into a hypocritical laughing stock.

Your assertions are not arguments. Where is your logical refutation of my conclusions? Where are your counterarguments?

In South Africa, under apartheid- there were Whites and Japanese with full rights as whites, then Indians, Mixed-race people "Coloureds" as they were called and Chinese, and then at the bottom of the heap with basically no rights there were black Africans.

Now- were the Indians, Chinese and "Coloureds" not oppressed because technically black people were oppressed more? Were Far Eastern people oppressed or not-oppressed?

No. They'd be called less oppressed. Perhaps, when you enter an elementary mathematics course and are taught about measurements, you'll understand the concept of degree.

Do people here consider affirmative action to be institutional racism?

In the literal sense, race-based affirmative action constitutes racial discrimination, but obviously not in the colloquial sense in which that term and the term "racism" are generally understood, hence the term "positive discrimination" used in the UK. Its effects are beneficial and not harmful, as empirical evidence indicates:

The Impact of Affirmative Action on Employment (http://www.jstor.org/stable/2534808)

Affirmative action under Executive Order no. 11246 ranks among the most controversial of domestic federal policies. This study asks whether affirmative action has been successful in promoting the employment of minorities and females. It compares the change in demographics between 1974 and 1980 at more than 68,000 establishments and finds that both minority and female employment have increased faster at establishments subject to affirmative action. Compliance reviews, while not well targeted, are also found to have been effective.

The Impact of Affirmative Action Regulation and Equal Employment Law on Black Employment (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1942721)

Despite poor targeting, affirmative action has helped promote the employment of minorities and women, and Title VII has likely played an even greater role. But has this pressure led to reduced discrimination, or has it gone beyond and induced reverse discrimination against white males? The evidence is least conclusive on this question. Direct tests of the impact of affirmative action on productivity find no significant evidence of a productivity decline, which implies a lack of substantial reverse discrimination (Leonard, 1984c)."

Affirmative action may be especially important not only in raising education and employment levels of women and ethnic minorities, but in that skilled ethnic minority professionals can better provide services to communities of their respective ethnic backgrounds then whites or other ethnic groups with similar credentials and abilities, thereby providing positive externalities. Obviously, however, whatever its amelioration benefits, it does not alter the fundamental problem, the existence of capitalism.

#FF0000

28th November 2010, 00:56

Would a wealthy black person benefit from AA? I am not familiar with the ins and outs of affirmative action.

To say that all black people or all women or all Asians are disadvantaged is a massive over generalization. Maybe you were saying that AA helps disadvantaged people in the sense that it helps poor black people and you were discounting the fact that it helps wealthy ones as well (assuming it does). This is fine, but then you kind of lose the argument that AA helps the disadvantaged. Also, AA would be helping privileged people of race X at the expense of underprivileged people of race Y. It would also help underprivileged people of race X at the expense of underprivileged people of race Y.

This is all assuming I understand AA correctly, so correct me if I am wrong.

Yeah I think that's a criticism we would share of affirmative action but I'm not sure how, exactly, it would work. In the U.S., affirmative action is illegal.

Manic Impressive

28th November 2010, 02:27

First of all, I've probably erred in even accepting the dichotomy between "whites" and "non-whites," since racial discrimination occurs with far more sophistication, such as de jure discrimination of "whites" against other "whites," such as the historical policies against the immigration of Irish and southern and eastern Europeans, with the stigma of southern Europeans' mixed-blooded status being an element of the bigotry expressed against them, the opposite phenomenon of mixed-blooded "whites" discriminating against more pure-blooded "whites," such as the Franco regime's enforcement of Castilian ethno-cultural dominance over Catalans and Basques, etc.

But in answer to that question, some racism may accompany anti-colonialist sentiment, simply because of the fact that associative learning is a trait of human psychology, and when the upper class elites are seen to typically possess a certain phenotype, that phenotype becomes associated with elitism. (Classical conditioning isn't really the proper term for this phenomenon, but the most effective one that I as a non-specialist can think of). Let's consider this article: Indian movement seeks 'to expel white invasion' (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/jun/23/20050623-112430-1607r/)

The anti-colonialist and anti-capitalist public opinions should be expressed in terms of class, but class overlaps with racial stratification, and as a result, race is associated with upper class membership. Ideally, that shouldn't be, since whites can and will "be John Browns," and it's perhaps a matter of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but from a different perspective, is cracking some eggs to make an omelet. Real-world practices rarely unfold as people idealize them, and if the revolutionary liberation of a country with some kind of apartheid structure, formal or informal, required an environment of hostility that encouraged the ethnic group that dominated the ruling class to emigrate, so be it. The consequences of that are preferable to those that would exist without any kind of revolutionary upheaval.
I've got to say I'm not that familiar with the situation there, what policies are they advocating which are discriminating against European descendants? Is it just land reform and redistribution of wealth which is directed at the ruling class who happen to be of European descent? Are their policies based on class differentials or purely race?

The situation there may not really be comparable to western countries where different races are integrated into different classes. If a group in the UK took the line that they were fighting for socialism and the rights of indigenous people, we wouldn't hesitate to condemn them as racist and counter revolutionary, and rightly so. If it takes cracking only one type of proletarian eggs (white/brown/speckled) to make an omelete then no it is definetly not worth it.

apawllo

28th November 2010, 03:03

Well if no-one had said stop doing that we probably still would be doing it, well some still haven't got the message so we have to keep telling them and educating them as to why it's wrong.

Let's be realistic though. You're planning to educate this deep-seated culture of race/racism out of people while the education system, media, most families and peers continually reinforce it? Excuse my defeatist attitude, but I'm just looking for a bit of anything to make me believe this might ever be possible...

On the subject of AA...in the US it has disproportionately helped white women for a reason. Well, you can look at it one of two ways. One, the establishment is racist and does not want to hire in Afro-Americans, Latinos, etc. Or two, the establishment is classist and will more readily hire in those who are higher up the ladder, so to speak. Perhaps it's a combination of the two.

At any rate, I'm not a huge fan of the racial quotas and all. It's just something for the establishment to use in order to give themselves a public pat on the back. A class based system may sort some of the issues that we have out though...

Skooma Addict

28th November 2010, 05:38

In the literal sense, race-based affirmative action constitutes racial discrimination, but obviously not in the colloquial sense in which that term and the term "racism" are generally understood, hence the term "positive discrimination" used in the UK. Its effects are beneficial and not harmful, as empirical evidence indicates: I am not sure about the effects being beneficial. I would expect employment of minorities and women to increase, but I think the more important point is productivity. The study you linked claimed there were no declines in productivity, but I would want to see the measurements in more depth. There are already strong incentives for companies to hire the most skilled workers and to overlook race. Southern streetcar companies fought ordinances to segregate black passengers for example.

I don't think discrimination against Blacks and Women is really that much of a problem. The government, not the market has historically been the main problem. For example...

An example of the effect of market penalties on prejudicial hiring occurred in South Africa in the early 1900s. In spite of penalties threatened by government and violence threatened by white workers, South African mine owners sought to increase profits by laying off high-priced white workers in order to hire lower-priced black workers. Higher-paying jobs were reserved for whites only after white workers successfully persuaded the government to place extreme restrictions on blacks’ ability to work (see apartheid (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Apartheid.html)). Market penalties for discrimination also mitigated the effects of prejudice in the McCarthy era when profit-maximizing producers defied the Motion Picture Academy’s blacklist and secretly hired blacklisted screenwriters.Also, as far as discrimination against blacks goes...

In a 2005 paper on wage differentials in American labor markets, June O’Neill and Dave O’Neill provide a vivid example of how omitted information can change conclusions about discrimination in wage studies. Simple comparisons of group wages for American men suggest that Japanese, Asian Indian, and Korean men earn 15 to 25 percent more than white non-Hispanic men. Black and American Indian men earn 25 percent less. A naïve interpretation of these earnings gaps would suggest that employers discriminate against whites and blacks and in favor of Asians.

But using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, an exceptionally detailed data set, the O’Neills show that Asian men in the United States have above-average educations. When education (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Education.html) is taken into account, the earnings gap between Asians and whites vanishes, and the black/white wage gap shrinks substantially because whites, on average, have more education than blacks. Adding geographic location shrinks the black/white wage gap further because a much larger proportion of black men live in the South, and southern wage levels tend to be lower for everyone. Adding individual achievement test scores, which are a measure of educational quality, erases the black/white wage gap for college graduates. Agreeing with James Heckman (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Heckman.html), the O’Neills quote Heckman’s conclusion that “most of the disparity in earnings between blacks and whites in the labor market of the 1990s is due to differences in the skills they bring to the market, not to discrimination in the market” (O’Neill and O’Neill 2005, p. 33; Heckman 1998, p. 101).

A lot to read but I am too lazy to paraphrase. As far as discrimination against women goes....

Studies of woman’s wages that conclude women are discriminated against in U.S. labor markets are also misleading when they suffer from the bias caused by omitted information. The gap between male and female wages narrowed from about 40 percent in 1970 to about 24 percent in 2003. Claims that the 24 percent difference results from bigotry typically ignore the fact that as a group women are more likely to work part time, choose careers in lower-paying fields, work for government or a nonprofit, and have fewer years of labor market experience than men of the same age. These differences could all create a wage gap and may reflect choices made to accommodate family responsibilities. Researchers who adjust for standard factors such as education, experience, and line of work find no significant difference between the earnings of men and women who never married and never had a child.As far as education goes, people will get into colleges which they are not qualified for and most likely take the place of a more capable student.

Overmatched academically, the supposed beneficiaries of official discrimination have dropout rates that are triple those of other students. This is a tragic result given that most of them would be perfectly capable of succeeding at less demanding schools. The preferential admissions also fail bar exams and medical licensing exams at much higher rates. Those who do graduate may have their confidence eroded by questions about whether they owe their success to discriminatory policies.So I would say that AA is not even needed in the first place. There is not point....

Barriers to hiring and firing make employers less likely to try out types of people with whom they have little experience. Minimum-wage laws and union wage scales keep wages higher than market wages, reducing the number of people employers wish to hire while simultaneously attracting more applicants. When this happens, bigots pay less for turning away applicants who match their productivity requirements but not their tastes.....And that the effects of AA are probably more harmful than beneficial.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Discrimination.html

Edit: Yes, I could have made this post shorter. But it is 12:40 and I am sick so cut me some slack.

ComradeMan

28th November 2010, 10:36

Look, I thought we were socialist/communists/anarchists.

1) To each and from according to his/her needs and abilities.

The keyword here is "each"- it doesn't mention race, ethnic group, nation, religion- does it?

Whilst AA may seek to address the historical injustices of the past does it actually do that? Does it not create just a new injustice in the present? Does it create class consciousness that supersedes racial/ethnic divides?

The proletariat have no nation- the proletariat have no race either.

The next point- seeing as race is a social construct that has been used by bourgeois reactionary forces and should actually be abandoned as any kind of useful political "axiom" then things like AA only serve to reinforce and/or acknowledge what is primarily a bourgeois and reactionary construct.

It's a bad idea- the intentions may be good but then so is the road to hell.

Getting back to the point- if it's only racism when it's white on black, what about asian on black, black on asian, asian on Jewish, etc etc etc etc... is that no longer racism?

Check this out from the UK:-

U4R-le_hCsc

Now, Emperor Selassie might have had some reactionary baggage- and we all know that- however, these words...

"Until the philosophy which holds one race superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned, everywhere is war and until there are no longer first-class and second-class citizens of any nation, until the color of a man's skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes. And until the basic human rights are equally guaranteed to all without regard to race, there is war. And until that day, the dream of lasting peace, world citizenship, rule of international morality, will remain but a fleeting illusion to be pursued, but never attained... now everywhere is war.”

RGacky3

28th November 2010, 10:52

ComradeMan

28th November 2010, 11:18

Comrademan, institutional racism is the major cause of personal racism, not the otherway around, you can find that out with just a timeline, when did racism start taking off in europe? After colonialism, when did it take off in in the US? Well, in the begining, but thats because the institutions were racist.

The causes for institutional racism could be many, but are generally colonialism, savery and the such all of which have economic causes.

Gacky- you can't have one without the other! Think about it. ;)

No one is denying that institutional racism exists. However in the OP it is asserted that racism can only exist between white and black in one direction.

Racism existed in Europe before colonialism.

The causes for racism go back much longer into inter-ethnic rivalry and tribalism.

Read a few more history books before you spout platitudes. ;)

Revolution starts with U

28th November 2010, 11:24

Ya. The word "slave" actually comes from the slavish people (MY PEOPLE! you filthy western europeans ;)... )
And I agree that defeating personal racism is the key to defeating institutional, not the other way around.
But what I think they are saying, Comrade, is that it's not [I]really racism (as in a problem), or at least doesn't appear to be for many people, if it is not institutional. That's why I try not to use racist anymore. I use prejudice, discriminatory, bigot, or subjugation whenever I can.

RGacky3

28th November 2010, 11:33

Gacky- you can't have one without the other! Think about it. ;)

Your right, but its a matter of the chicken and the egg, the reason why I don't really care about personal racism is the same reason why I don't care if there are people that are just dicks, you fight institutional racism and personal racism will drop, thats always how its worked.

No one is denying that institutional racism exists. However in the OP it is asserted that racism can only exist between white and black in one direction.

Of coarse racism can be between any races, but generally thats refering to personal racism, institutional racism is the ruling class using racism for its own benefits, thats the racism that is really really destructive and the racism that cuases most of the personal racism.

Racism existed in Europe before colonialism.

The causes for racism go back much longer into inter-ethnic rivalry and tribalism.

Read a few more history books before you spout platitudes.

tribalism and ethnic (national) rivalry is different from the racism that we talk about today, eitherway, racism almost always stems from institutional causes, even the type your talking about came from the raise of kingdoms.

But what I think they are saying, Comrade, is that it's not really racism (as in a problem), or at least doesn't appear to be for many people, if it is not institutional. That's why I try not to use racist anymore. I use prejudice, discriminatory, bigot, or subjugation whenever I can.

What I'm saying, is kind of the same thing I was talking about with social ills, you fight the disease not the symptom, personal racism can be a problem in a large scale, but the real underlying problem is institutional racism, not a guy that just has a dick attitude.

RGacky3

28th November 2010, 11:34

Ya. The word "slave" actually comes from the slavish people (MY PEOPLE! you filthy western europeans ;)... [I'm scotch-irish as well, so i'm filthy too. It's all good :cool:])

But your in Ohio, so now your white :P, your good now.

ComradeMan

28th November 2010, 12:27

Of coarse racism can be between any races, but generally thats refering to personal racism, institutional racism is the ruling class using racism for its own benefits, thats the racism that is really really destructive and the racism that cuases most of the personal racism.

tribalism and ethnic (national) rivalry is different from the racism that we talk about today, eitherway, racism almost always stems from institutional causes, even the type your talking about came from the raise of kingdoms.

Was it different when the Anglo-Saxons in Britain used the word "slave" wealhas to describe the British Celtic population? This is where the word "Welsh" comes from. Was it different when the chronicles record the Cornish/British were driven from a city and it was thus "cleansed of its defilement by wiping out that filthy race"- we are talking long before colonialism.

What about Bantu-African exploitation of "pygmy" groups?

What about Arab expansionism and the slave trade?

Is it? Was it different in Yugoslavia? Was it different in the Rwanda conflict?

Sorry, but this is all ahistorical bullshit and has nothing to do with what socialists should be doing or about.

Racism exists on many different levels- and differs in its severity but what the OP saying is that it is not racism unless a white person does it- this is racist in itself.

So were the white Jewish victims of the Holocaust not victims of racism?

Is anti-Semitism not a form of racism?

The OP's point is ridiculous under international law and a seemingly universal understanding of what does and does not constitute racism, from a socialist/communist point of view, and logically fallacious as it might be- downright common sense.

RGacky3

28th November 2010, 12:37

So were the white Jewish victims of the Holocaust not victims of racism?

Is anti-Semitism not a form of racism?

Yes, the Ops point is wrong, I was'nt saying that it was'nt, I was saying that institutional racism is the main cause and institutional racism generally comes from economic material causes.

Targaryen

28th November 2010, 13:35

Yes, the Ops point is wrong, I was'nt saying that it was'nt, I was saying that institutional racism is the main cause and institutional racism generally comes from economic material causes.
It may be true that in the present institutionalized racism may come more often from withes against non-whites but that doesn't change the nature of racism. If there would be a shift in power in favor of any non-white group those "harmless" personal racist will become the ones imposing institutionalized racism, so how could personal racism coming from non-whites against whites not be dangerous?
Most of us don't have the means to fight institutionalized racism but we can fight personal racism in everyday life, and we should no mater from who is coming.

Reznov

28th November 2010, 16:36

Depends on the definition you're using. Anybody can be bigoted against someone of a different race, but not all races can be systematically discriminated against.

McDougal's using the latter definition, and in that case, in the West, black people cannot be racist because they are not in control of society. In the West, the vast majority of people with power are White.

This doesn't mean all white people are bad and racist. But it does mean that the black community is at a disadvantage.

What a load of shit. A poor white person is treated as shit and viewed as such by the bourgeoisie just like a poor black man or poor ANYBODY.

There is no ruling "white" class, Imperalism and capitalism have evolved beyond that. There is a Bourgeoisie that discriminates against everyone of the Proletariat, however.

People need to wake up, if you did "reverse racism" and made it fine for blacks to discrimnate against whites, it still wouldn't fix this fucked up system that created this problem in the first place. Having a "black community" that can discriminate against the "white community" is racism.

Anytime when a certain group of Human beings think they have a right to justify being racist due to a superior religion, creed, race or sex is bullshit.

But sadly, Imperalism justifies this. From Romans invading and enslaving the Jews. To the Japanese invasion of China, to Englands bid for colonys.

Imperalism/capitalism is the problem, not a fake social structure created to divide and weaken the working classes.

ComradeMan

28th November 2010, 17:00

Thinking about the OP--- well, it just crossed my mind, but.... this is not the first time I have heard such attitudes expressed and to my shock applauded by sections of the left- at the same time the "white" working classes seem to be more and more alienated from the left (at least in Europe) and the right is growing- the EDL in England for example.

Posts like the OP just seem to confirm exactly what the rightwingers "use" against the left to bring over the "white working classes".

My point being, attitudes as expressed by the OP are not only, in my opinion, racist themselves albeit in a tacit way, not only erroneous in that they are based on a very narrow view and ignore geopolitical history etc, but that they are indeed potentially harmful to the left as a cause.

But then--- the OP seems to be taking a line that Indian racism was all the fault of the whites, now he is posting this, he is a self-proclaimed "Saddamist"- who in his opening posts hailed the virtues of Saddam (I have to believe this was irony) and uses as an avatar a picture of Saddam himself- the reactionary nationalist-racist former US lackey turned bad, guilty of ethnic violence.

Makes you wonder doesn't it?

#FF0000

28th November 2010, 17:05

Was it different when the Anglo-Saxons in Britain used the word "slave" wealhas to describe the British Celtic population? This is where the word "Welsh" comes from. Was it different when the chronicles record the Cornish/British were driven from a city and it was thus "cleansed of its defilement by wiping out that filthy race"- we are talking long before colonialism.

What about Bantu-African exploitation of "pygmy" groups?

What about Arab expansionism and the slave trade?

Is it? Was it different in Yugoslavia? Was it different in the Rwanda conflict?

Sorry, but this is all ahistorical bullshit and has nothing to do with what socialists should be doing or about.

Racism exists on many different levels- and differs in its severity but what the OP saying is that it is not racism unless a white person does it- this is racist in itself.

So were the white Jewish victims of the Holocaust not victims of racism?

Is anti-Semitism not a form of racism?

The OP's point is ridiculous under international law and a seemingly universal understanding of what does and does not constitute racism, from a socialist/communist point of view, and logically fallacious as it might be- downright common sense.

Literally nothing you say suggests that white privilege doesn't exist. Your arguments are barely coherent.

#FF0000

28th November 2010, 17:07

What a load of shit. A poor white person is treated as shit and viewed as such by the bourgeoisie just like a poor black man or poor ANYBODY.

There is no ruling "white" class, Imperalism and capitalism have evolved beyond that. There is a Bourgeoisie that discriminates against everyone of the Proletariat, however.

People need to wake up, if you did "reverse racism" and made it fine for blacks to discrimnate against whites, it still wouldn't fix this fucked up system that created this problem in the first place. Having a "black community" that can discriminate against the "white community" is racism.

Anytime when a certain group of Human beings think they have a right to justify being racist due to a superior religion, creed, race or sex is bullshit.

But sadly, Imperalism justifies this. From Romans invading and enslaving the Jews. To the Japanese invasion of China, to Englands bid for colonys.

Imperalism/capitalism is the problem, not a fake social structure created to divide and weaken the working classes.

I would say that it is harder, overall, to be a black working class person than a white working class person. Does this matter? Probably not because I don't think we can really get rid of racism and privilege in any meaningful capacity under capitalism.

Manic Impressive

28th November 2010, 17:10

Literally nothing you say suggests that white privilege doesn't exist. Your arguments are barely coherent.
He's not saying that "White privilege" doesn't exist but that it does not serve as an excuse as racism against white people. And that anyone can be racist no matter what ethnic background they come from.

ComradeMan

28th November 2010, 17:18

Literally nothing you say suggests that white privilege doesn't exist. Your arguments are barely coherent.

By basing privilege on racial grounds you are being racist yourself- the Germans accused the Jews of being privileged, "bourgeois" rich, parasites bleeding the honest German worker and so on.

White privilege? So all white people are rich and privileged?

Hey- I think I as an "unprivileged" white person can thus start being racist towards Arabs--- yeah, those damn oil-rich bourgeois sheikhs... you know...

What a stupid argument for someone who calls themselves a leftist.

How do you think those "unprivileged" white people, like all the ones that live in the projects/municipal housing estates all over Europe and America(?) might feel to be branded "privileged"- futhermore in the knowledge that they are not "entitled" to protection from racism?

You really are an idiot and you can stick your attempt at a strawman up your ass.

#FF0000

28th November 2010, 17:27

He's not saying that "White privilege" doesn't exist but that it does not serve as an excuse as racism against white people. And that anyone can be racist no matter what ethnic background they come from.

Er, saying white privilege exists doesn't mean mean that black people or anyone else can't have racial biases and white people can't be discriminated against.

By basing privilege on racial grounds you are being racist yourself- the Germans accused the Jews of being privileged, "bourgeois" rich, parasites bleeding the honest German worker and so on.

White privilege? So all white people are rich and privileged?

Except that Jews weren't privileged. They were second class citizens because they were Jewish.

And no, white privilege doesn't mean all white people are rich and privileged. It means that a white person isn't going to be stopped by the police for driving a nice car and isn't going to be turned away from a job for having a "black" name.

To be honest I think you're delusional if you think that people who are black, hispanic, or middle eastern don't have a rougher go of it in life in America than white people.

Hey- I think I as an "unprivileged" white person can thus start being racist towards Arabs--- yeah, those damn oil-rich bourgeois sheikhs... you know...

What a stupid argument for someone who calls themselves a leftist.

How do you think those "unprivileged" white people, like all the ones that live in the projects/municipal housing estates all over Europe and America(?) might feel to be branded "privileged"- futhermore in the knowledge that they are not "entitled" to protection from racism?

I think it's really funny that you were talking about me bringing up strawmen. Really, really funny.

And to be honest I don't think they'll disagree with the fact that cops don't bother them on the basis of their skin color and they don't get turned away from things because they are white. People have trouble with the term "Privilege" but when put another way they won't deny it exists.

Manic Impressive

28th November 2010, 17:42

Er, saying white privilege exists doesn't mean mean that black people or anyone else can't have racial biases and white people can't be discriminated against.
Good I'm glad we agree but some people have been saying that and they've been going even further and saying it justifies racism against white people. Why aren't you arguing against them?

And no, white privilege doesn't mean all white people are rich and privileged. It means that a white person isn't going to be stopped by the police for driving a nice car and isn't going to be turned away from a job for having a "black" name.I used to get stopped and searched all the time when I was wearing a baseball cap, a hoodie and blasting out rap music.

To be honest I think you're delusional if you think that people who are black, hispanic, or middle eastern don't have a rougher go of it in life in America than white people.Now this really says it all we're not talking about America exclusively. In fact I fully acknowledge that America has a different situation regarding race compared to the rest of the world. I've never been there and I never will go there so I don't fully understand the situation there, but Americans usually argue only from their point of view and expect that the rest of the world is the same. The encroachment of American culture into our society has led people to play this political identity game much more than they used to.

red cat

28th November 2010, 17:47

Now this really says it all we're not talking about America exclusively. In fact I fully acknowledge that America has a different situation regarding race compared to the rest of the world. I've never been there and I never will go there so I don't fully understand the situation there, but Americans usually argue only from their point of view and expect that the rest of the world is the same. The encroachment of American culture into our society has led people to play this political identity game much more than they used to.

In which countries is an average non-white better off than an average white ?

Revolution starts with U

28th November 2010, 17:49

When you're berated everyday with "america is the greatest, freest, best, most inspiring, rainbows and daisies out your ass country in the world" it's very easy to fall into american exceptionalism, if only subconsciously.

Manic Impressive

28th November 2010, 17:54

urgh I'm not saying that I'm saying that from what every American I've heard talk about racial issues has explained that the situation there is much much worse with areas of cities being predominantly white or predominantly black or hispanic that's certainly different from most countries I've been to except South Africa. America has a different problem and the attitude that they take concerning race does not help the situation.

ComradeMan

28th November 2010, 17:54

Er, saying white privilege exists doesn't mean mean that black people or anyone else can't have racial biases and white people can't be discriminated against.

Attributing privilege to class and race to build a racial argument is racist.

We shouldn't be even thinking in terms of race.

Except that Jews weren't privileged. They were second class citizens because they were Jewish. .

No, they weren't de facto a lot of them were just normal Germans like every one else. In fact the Jewish population of Holland and Germany were also victimised so the Nazis could pillage their wealth and goods. Anne Frank's father had been an officer in the German army in WWI- higher ranking than Hitler. They were not all second-class citizens by any means at all.

And no, white privilege doesn't mean all white people are rich and privileged. It means that a white person isn't going to be stopped by the police for driving a nice car and isn't going to be turned away from a job for having a "black" name. .

Just because shit like that happens in the US, does not mean the rest of the world is the same. I've been stopped loads of times at road blocks, usually at the edge of the projects- oh, most of the people in them are white too- because this is Italy not the US.

Look no one is saying racism doesn't exist- but the OP is trying to say that it's only racism when white people do it to black people?

What about when Idi Amin expelled the "bourgeois" Indians from Uganda?

Oh, that wasn't racism by this definition....

Re the names? Well, wasn't there a case of prejudice from a US college or university turning away people who had Italian or Latino names? But I suppose that doesn't count because it can't be racism because it's white on white.

To be honest I think you're delusional if you think that people who are black, hispanic, or middle eastern don't have a rougher go of it in life in America than white people..

Which white people and where? The whole world is not the US. But whether people have a hard time or not does not justify the point the OP is making does it?

No one is denying the appalling racial track record of the country that vaunts itself as a beacon of freedom and democracy. The country that had virtual apartheid itself until the 1960's- but, that does not justify the OP's point. I'm not the only one saying this either.

And to be honest I don't think they'll disagree with the fact that cops don't bother them on the basis of their skin color and they don't get turned away from things because they are white. People have trouble with the term "Privilege" but when put another way they won't deny it exists.

Are you completely unable to ever take things outside of a US context?

Ever?

Not once?

And even if there are racist police in the US and even if white people are better off in the US than black people, it doesn't justify the point of the OP.

Taken in a global context- it's complete nonsense and ahistorical.

#FF0000

28th November 2010, 18:01

Attributing privilege to class and race to build a racial argument is racist.

We shouldn't be even thinking in terms of race.

"Pointing out institutional and systematic racism is racist!" :lol:

No, they weren't de facto a lot of them were just normal Germans like every one else. In fact the Jewish population of Holland and Germany were also victimised so the Nazis could pillage their wealth and goods. Anne Frank's father had been an officer in the German army in WWI- higher ranking than Hitler. They were not all second-class citizens by any means at all.

Except that isn't true because Jews in Europe had been facing systematic and institutional discrimination for centuries. That's why many jews tried to hide it by changing names and going to church.

#FF0000

28th November 2010, 18:04

Keep in mind that all of this is completely from an American perspective because that is all I know.

Look no one is saying racism doesn't exist- but the OP is trying to say that it's only racism when white people do it to black people?

What about when Idi Amin expelled the "bourgeois" Indians from Uganda?

Oh, that wasn't racism by this definition....

Uh, no that's racism. Prvilege doesn't come from imagined status (Like "Jews/Indians/whatever are bourgeois"). It comes from actual power. In Uganda, Indians and Asians did not have power, as evidenced by the fact that they were thrown out of the country.

You're either exceptionally stupid or purposefully misunderstanding what "privilege" means.

Re the names? Well, wasn't there a case of prejudice from a US college or university turning away people who had Italian or Latino names? But I suppose that doesn't count because it can't be racism because it's white on white.

"Latino" isn't counted as white in America. Sorry. That isn't white on white.

The Red Next Door

28th November 2010, 18:14

Er, saying white privilege exists doesn't mean mean that black people or anyone else can't have racial biases and white people can't be discriminated against.

Except that Jews weren't privileged. They were second class citizens because they were Jewish.

And no, white privilege doesn't mean all white people are rich and privileged. It means that a white person isn't going to be stopped by the police for driving a nice car and isn't going to be turned away from a job for having a "black" name.

To be honest I think you're delusional if you think that people who are black, hispanic, or middle eastern don't have a rougher go of it in life in America than white people.

I think it's really funny that you were talking about me bringing up strawmen. Really, really funny.

And to be honest I don't think they'll disagree with the fact that cops don't bother them on the basis of their skin color and they don't get turned away from things because they are white. People have trouble with the term "Privilege" but when put another way they won't deny it exists.

You and comrademan are correct, but yeah. If you are white in America, and a famous wealthy black person like Oprah, you are going to have it easy; If you are Black, Latino, Asian, and Middle Eastern or Roma. You are going to have it hard and this just not in America, It is in any white bourgeoise rule nation. Like for example, does anyone remember what happen in France with the Roma? And in the same country; Blacks immigrants were kick out on the streets.

But just because the white bourgeoisie enforce racism on us non-whites does not mean it is okay to be racist towards the ones who are not even racist. It understandable, but not cool still.

It not their fault that they are treated better because of their skin tone; it the establishment fault.

Then you have Black people who are racist towards other blacks and Latinos; especially those uncle toms who are apart of the establishment are self hating and racist towards their fellow African-Americans. It not just white hating non white; you have non-whites hating non-whites too. You have gang killing people because they are latino and because they are black.

We need to address racism from the top and the bottom towards others on the bottom; This is just nothing but the game of the bourgeoisie white and black to divided the working class.

Lt. Ferret

28th November 2010, 18:14

indians and asians HAD power until a black dictator came to power and kicked them out, which effectively crippled their economy.

so if an economic minority comes to political power as a majority and destroys the economic majority but political minority, which cripples both of them economically whos oppressing whom?

ComradeMan

28th November 2010, 18:15

"Pointing out institutional and systematic racism is racist!" :lol:

Except that isn't true because Jews in Europe had been facing systematic and institutional discrimination for centuries. That's why many jews tried to hide it by changing names and going to church.

No... more strawmen.

Race is a social construct- we argue things in terms of class and materialism, don't we? ;)

Secondly, saying only white people can be racists because they are de facto privileged is racist despite the numerous examples of non-white racism and some non-white privilege, the fact that these definitions of racism as in the OP are nowhere recognised under law and quite frankly are laughable.

Where do Japanese people fall into this strange paradigm? Out of interest? Or wealthy Indian upper-castes, or perhaps oil rich Arab aristocracy.

Except Europe is not synonymous with Holland and Germany ;)

The Jewish people had fled Catholic and Orthodox persecution in Southern and Eastern Europe and settled in "Protestant" Countries where there was greater tollerance and they did not fear pogroms etc. Spinoza is one example. Cromwell actually invited the Jews back to England, they had been kicked out under the Catholic kings, most of the Jews of Southern Italy were driven out by the Catholic Spanish monarchy too. I'm not saying anti-Semitism didn't exis but you are as usual simplifying things "conveniently" so as not to reveal your astonishing ignorance. You are also taking things back to which historical period? The French Revolution and the Napoleonic invasion had basically put Jewish people in the Netherlands on an equal footing with other Dutch people. In Britain the emancipation of the Jewish people was in the 1870's- never heard of Disraeli? Never heard of De Rothchild?

We were also talking about the 1930's.

I suggest you hand back your history degree.

But let's think about the OP?

Barack Obama- arguably the most powerful man in the Western World, at the head of capitalist privilege.
Condoleeza Rice
Colin Powell

Would underprivileged poor white people be entitled to be abusive and racist towards these people, on the basis of privilege?

I also notice how you skipped over Idi Amin's racism towards Asians.

Manic Impressive

28th November 2010, 18:17

Keep in mind that all of this is completely from an American perspective because that is all I know.Yep I understand that but please don't assume that we are only talking about the states. You have different issues there because of a different history and a much greater number of non-whites even proportionally. The ruling class in America has taken a different line on these and many different issues but I might suggest listening to people in other countries where the situation is not as bad about attitudes regarding race.

Uh, no that's racism. Prvilege doesn't come from imagined status (Like "Jews/Indians/whatever are bourgeois"). It comes from actual power. In Uganda, Indians and Asians did not have power, as evidenced by the fact that they were thrown out of the country. Except under the British they did enjoy better conditions and they did hold a disproportional amount of the countries wealth.

The Red Next Door

28th November 2010, 18:18

Gacky- you can't have one without the other! Think about it. ;)

No one is denying that institutional racism exists. However in the OP it is asserted that racism can only exist between white and black in one direction.

Racism existed in Europe before colonialism.

The causes for racism go back much longer into inter-ethnic rivalry and tribalism.

Read a few more history books before you spout platitudes. ;)

Oh comrademan, While we are at it; We need to talk about your own racism. You are a damn zionist. ZIONISM=RACISM.

ComradeMan

28th November 2010, 18:22

Oh comrademan, While we are at it; We need to talk about your own racism. You are a damn zionist. ZIONISM=RACISM.

LOL!!!!!!!!! That's a pitiful attempt, and tantamount acknowledgement to the fact that you are losing the argument.

Why am I a Zionist? All I have ever said is a secular one state solution in Israel-Palestine with equal rights for all and a right to self-determination for all the people of the territory that safeguards their language, culture and religion as they see fit.

But, if we want to take this one using the logic of the OP- it's not racism, because Jewish people have internalised the centuries of anti-Semitism of Europe and this is a reaction to it, namely the state of Israel.

If you want, we can start a new thread and talk about it there.

Or perhaps you can fuck off.

#FF0000

28th November 2010, 18:24

Would underprivileged poor white people be entitled to be abusive and racist towards these people, on the basis of privilege?

No because a few black people having power does not mean that racism doesn't exist.

And I didn't skip over anything.

#FF0000

28th November 2010, 18:26

Race is a social construct- we argue things in terms of class and materialism, don't we?

Oh, so I suppose that means we should flat out ignore discrimination on the basis of sex, gender, and race? Great idea, champ.

And, by the way, class is a social construct as well. Things being a social construct doesn't mean that it doesn't affect people's lives.

I mean holy shit I'm not saying anything that everyone here doesn't already agree with.

In America, laws are enforced in such a way that it targets ethnic minorities a disproportionate amount.

If you are an ethnic minority in America, you are more likely to be in poverty and live in a high crime area.

It is also unlikely that you will receive public assistance of the same quality that a similarly poor white person would receive.

All that I am saying is that this stuff happens in America. I am sure it happens in Europe and in Australia and everywhere else, as well, in different ways.

Jesus.

Lt. Ferret

28th November 2010, 18:29

i chalk a lot of that up to regionalism as well. Blacks in the South are poor, yeah, but everyone in the South is poor. I lived in the deep South for a while. Shit sucks there. I live in California, the poor here are making a helluva lot more money than in Georgia, black or white or most hispanics (i am not counting the illegals or migrant workers who have to pick fruit).

blacks in new england are going to be doing pretty well, compared to their ethnic brethren in the midwest or again, the deep south.

My income didn't change much when I moved from Oklahoma to California, but the standard of living out here is kicking my ass. I lived like a king in that midwestern state.

ComradeMan

28th November 2010, 18:29

No because a few black people having power does not mean that racism doesn't exist.

And I didn't skip over anything.

Ah, so there are some black people with power and privilege just like there are some white people who are poor and underprivileged.

So why not do the socialist thing and drop the race arguments altogether and concentrate on privilege and class issues- which is the real problem nearly every time.

What about Idi Amin?

What about the Palestinians BTW who are treated as second class citizens and like shit in other Arab nations, well-known fact, seen it myself and confirmed to me by many Palestinians too- is that not a form of racism because it's not white and it's Arab on Arab?

What about the Khmer Rouge (:() and their racist nationalism?

Does that not count because they are not white?

What about the accusations of racism towards the Chinese viz the Tibetan issue?

What about those?

The Red Next Door

28th November 2010, 18:31

LOL!!!!!!!!! That's a pitiful attempt, and tantamount acknowledgement to the fact that you are losing the argument.

Why am I a Zionist? All I have ever said is a secular one state solution in Israel-Palestine with equal rights for all and a right to self-determination for all the people of the territory that safeguards their language, culture and religion as they see fit.

But, if we want to take this one using the logic of the OP- it's not racism, because Jewish people have internalised the centuries of anti-Semitism of Europe and this is a reaction to it, namely the state of Israel.

If you want, we can start a new thread and talk about it there.

Or perhaps you can fuck off.

It was not my intention, but i think i started a flamebait ,:(. but i let the other explain; i don't feel like digging up your old posts.

Manic Impressive

28th November 2010, 18:31

But, if we want to take this one using the logic of the OP- it's not racism, because Jewish people have internalised the centuries of anti-Semitism of Europe and this is a reaction to it, namely the state of Israel.

Just want to say BOOOOMSHANKAAA game set and match lol great answer.

The Red Next Door

28th November 2010, 18:34

Lt. Ferret

28th November 2010, 18:36

it doesn't matter where you live; it depends on the job.

yeah and your job at mcdonalds in arkansas and california will by default pay different amounts of money. it DOES matter where you live, local economies fluctuate wildly.

ComradeMan

28th November 2010, 18:37

Oh, so I suppose that means we should flat out ignore discrimination on the basis of sex, gender, and race? Great idea, champ.
And, by the way, class is a social construct as well. Things being a social construct doesn't mean that it doesn't affect people's lives.
I mean holy shit I'm not saying anything that everyone here doesn't already agree with.

Well quite a lot of people have been disagreeing with you so you are either willfully disregarding their points or being conveniently obtuse.

You see what the OP does with his point is saying that privilege and whiteness are practically synonymous- thus to attack "whiteness" is to attack privilege- so hey, presto- we end up with attacking white people as class war. It's tacit, but it's there and it's not the first time I've heard these arguments either.

But then aren't Third Worldists restricted here at RevLeft for those kinds of attitudes in a sense, just perhaps they use the word Western instead of white.

In America, laws are enforced in such a way that it targets ethnic minorities a disproportionate amount.
If you are an ethnic minority in America, you are more likely to be in poverty and live in a high crime area.
It is also unlikely that you will receive public assistance of the same quality that a similarly poor white person would receive.
All that I am saying is that this stuff happens in America. I am sure it happens in Europe and in Australia and everywhere else, as well, in different ways.
Jesus.

America, America, America.... always about fucking America. The OP nowhere stated that he was talking about America alone and his point led on from a discussion in which he denied that Indians could even be racist (towards other Indians) and even if they were it was because they had learnt this from their former colonial masters the British.... Despite of course a couple of thousand years of evidence to the contrary.

You know, I think America must be one seriously fucked up society the way you guys go on at times, seriously racist- I think you probably talk more about racial issues than in countries like South Africa, where it would be understandable too.

#FF0000

28th November 2010, 18:38

Ah, so there are some black people with power and privilege just like there are some white people who are poor and underprivileged.

The concept of "white privilege" doesn't say that no black people have power and that all white people have power. It says this:

It is harder for black people to get to a position of power than it is for a white person.

And that is very, very, very generally speaking.

So why not do the socialist thing and drop the race arguments altogether and concentrate on privilege and class issues- which is the real problem nearly every time.

I'm not saying class isn't important. I said earlier, we can't solve issues of racism in any meaningful capacity under capitalism. That doesn't mean we should say "OH PRIVILEGE DOESN'T EXIST AND ETHNIC MINORITIES IN EVERY
COUNTRY HAVE A GOOD AND EQUAL CHANCE TO SUCCEED!"

What about Idi Amin?

I answered that.

What about the Palestinians BTW who are treated as second class citizens and like shit in other Arab nations, well-known fact, seen it myself and confirmed to me by many Palestinians too- is that not a form of racism because it's not white and it's Arab on Arab?

It's sort of splitting hairs. Palestinians are treated like shit in Egypt, for example, because they're refugees, I think. It's probably the same situation elsewhere too, so no, not racism.

What about the Khmer Rouge (:() and their racist nationalism?

They might have been racist. I don't know.

Does that not count because they are not white?

No, stupid.

White privilege is a concept that came about in the West (Probably America, specifically!) to describe what was happening in the West (Probably America, again, specifically!).

You are stupid.

#FF0000

28th November 2010, 18:39

America, America, America.... always about fucking America. The OP nowhere stated that he was talking about America alone and his point led on from a discussion in which he denied that Indians could even be racist (towards other Indians) and even if they were it was because they had learnt this from their former colonial masters the British.... Despite of course a couple of thousand years of evidence to the contrary.

You know, I think America must be one seriously fucked up society the way you guys go on at times, seriously racist- I think you probably talk more about racial issues than in countries like South Africa, where it would be understandable too.

I'm talking about America, and have stated I'm talking about America, because that is what I know. What I'm saying and the examples I'm using are true for America. I've stated this.

red cat

28th November 2010, 18:49

Ah, so there are some black people with power and privilege just like there are some white people who are poor and underprivileged.

By white privilege he is pointing to the fact that an average white is far better off than an average non-white.

I will also add that the most dominant form of racism so far has been white racism.

So why not do the socialist thing and drop the race arguments altogether and concentrate on privilege and class issues- which is the real problem nearly every time.

What about Idi Amin?

What about the Palestinians BTW who are treated as second class citizens and like shit in other Arab nations, well-known fact, seen it myself and confirmed to me by many Palestinians too- is that not a form of racism because it's not white and it's Arab on Arab?

What about the Khmer Rouge (:() and their racist nationalism?

Does that not count because they are not white?

What about the accusations of racism towards the Chinese viz the Tibetan issue?

What about those?

I do not agree with you regarding the Khmer Rouge. Many revolutionary regimes are wrongly accused of racism. Anyways, we do concentrate on class and privilege issues, but since racism, sexism etc. continue to be the next biggest issues after these, and often merge with the class question, proletarian politics remains largely incomplete if these are not addressed.

CAleftist

28th November 2010, 18:50

Racism is a product of unequal material conditions between one "race" and another, and competition for work between one "race" and another.

Both are products of capitalism.

ComradeMan

28th November 2010, 18:51

The concept of "white privilege" doesn't say that no black people have power and that all white people have power. It says this:

It is harder for black people to get to a position of power than it is for a white person.

And that is very, very, very generally speaking.

Yeah but when you use generalisation you are actually arguing from a logically fallacious position.

Sweeping generalisations have no place in any serious discussion of this nature- hell, racism is a form of sweeping generalisation isn't it?

I once again refer you to the OP--- have a look.

My point about Barack Obama was not that, and you know it- I was applying the logic of the OP.

I'm not saying class isn't important. I said earlier, we can't solve issues of racism in any meaningful capacity under capitalism. That doesn't mean we should say "OH PRIVILEGE DOESN'T EXIST AND ETHNIC MINORITIES IN EVERY
COUNTRY HAVE A GOOD AND EQUAL CHANCE TO SUCCEED!"

Did I say that? Strawman alert- strawman alert.

The OP clearly stated it's only racism if it's a white v black thing. Utter nonsense.

It's sort of splitting hairs. Palestinians are treated like shit in Egypt, for example, because they're refugees, I think. It's probably the same situation elsewhere too, so no, not racism.

Well then my Palestinian friends who talked about racism towards them, even the second or third generation born in the "host" countries- namely Jordan, must be hallucinating.

They might have been racist. I don't know.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

White privilege is a concept that came about in the West (Probably America, specifically!) to describe what was happening in the West (Probably America, again, specifically!).

You are stupid.

America, America, America....

America, America, America....

Let's all ignore the entire rest of the fucking world because here in...

America....

I notice the almost Freudian association of the West with America too, but never mind.

It's a non-workable concept and it's racist in that it is using a race to define something just in the same way that the Nazis did and every other fucking racist prick has done.

To say "White people in America have been historically privileged" is fair, to create a concept of "white privilege" and that fucked up idea of "whiteness" = privilege and being bourgeois is a different thing entirely, it's also stupid in that it alienates a lot of non-privileged white people and also that it creates carte blanche (no pun intended) for genuine racism towards people to, like the example one member used here of his friend who was assaulted.

I may be stupid, hell, coming from a genius like you I should be concerned, but at least I am not a dishonest hypocrite with double-standards.

red cat

28th November 2010, 18:52

Racism is a product of unequal material conditions between one "race" and another, and competition for work between one "race" and another.

Both are products of capitalism.

Racism predates capitalism.

#FF0000

28th November 2010, 19:05

Racism predates capitalism.

I'm not actually so sure about that. Racism as we know it is only like, maybe 400 years old.

#FF0000

28th November 2010, 19:05

Let's all ignore the entire rest of the fucking world because here in...

I'm not saying that. I'm just talking about what I know, and that's America and the West.

ComradeMan

28th November 2010, 19:14

By white privilege he is pointing to the fact that an average white is far better off than an average non-white.
I will also add that the most dominant form of racism so far has been white racism.

I do not agree with you regarding the Khmer Rouge. Many revolutionary regimes are wrongly accused of racism. Anyways, we do concentrate on class and privilege issues, but since racism, sexism etc. continue to be the next biggest issues after these, and often merge with the class question, proletarian politics remains largely incomplete if these are not addressed.

Red Cat- seeing as you are a reasonable person with which to debate, I'll concentrate on your points.

My line of argument here is with the OP.

No one would deny that in certain geopolitical areas and periods average whites have been better off than average non-whites.

However- the OP is stating that racism is basically a white phenomenon and only white people can be racist, disregarding plenty of non-white racism too.

From a proletarian point of view, racism should be dealt with- but this idiotic approach here is not the answer. The best way to deal with racism is to get the proletariat to eradicate the whole notion of race from their mindsets, and that cannot be done if one group is made into a target. The white people like the one who was beaten up for example, probably don't belong to a privileged class and thus to deny that racism was involved in that case because of "white privilege" is nonsense.

On the Khmer Rouge- well, their racist anti-non-Khmer rhetoric and actions are well documented.

Have you never wondered how strange it is that racism seems to disappear when you look at things horizontally and not vertically going up the social ladder?

The real rich capitalists and the "aristocracy" don't care about your colour, they care about your class and your nice big Swiss Bank Account.... ;) Whilst the EDL noobs are hating Arabs and there are the Muslims against Crusaders lunatics on the streets in Britain, the Queen and the Arab Sheikhs are having a good laugh together looking at their collections of thoroughbred racehorses.

The whole notion of race in a modern sense- is a tool to divide the proletariat and create boundaries that shouldn't be there. What the OP is doing however is reinforcing something that serves the very purpose the left is supposed to be against.

You can't reify a notion such as "white privilege", say that "only" white people can be racist and then not alienate a large number of non-privileged white people- who happen also to be proletarians too.

ComradeMan

28th November 2010, 19:29

Just want to say BOOOOMSHANKAAA game set and match lol great answer.

Anyone for tennis?

Thanks... this is exactly the problem with these kinds of ideas- as expressed in the OP.

People need to be treated individually within society. Notions of poverty and privilege may be objective when viewed statistically but they are highly subjective when viewed individually, and ultimately it is the individual that is affected.

On doing a bit of a quick look into this subject, it's seems to be an American concept in response to the American historical situation- by no means universal.

I hasten to add too-- the OP had just come from the thread where he tantamount denied that racism existed in India, at all, and tacitly implied it is solely a white phenomenon despite all evidence to the contrary- so he was not, in my opinion, even discussing this idea within the historical context of the US.

Â¿Que?

28th November 2010, 19:33

This is a spinoff of the 'white supremacy' thread where someone mentioned just about anyone can be racist. I have a doubt, and I hope this doesn't turn into a nasty debate.LOL. Anyway, let me just preface this by saying I'm coming into this thread kind of late, and I haven't really read every response, but I'm beginning to see a pattern of responses from various perspectives on this issue. If i repeat what someone has already said, I apologize ahead of time.

In any case, I'm glad you asked this. Too many leftists here seem to play the class card as a defense against any nuanced accounting of race and racism, even ones based on class or materialist analysis! But more on this later.

All this time, I thought only the privileged class (read whites) can be racist. Not saying nonwhites are angels but they lack the power and means. For instance, what people normally call 'reverse racism' is just a reaction to real or perceived injustice rather than actual racism. Likewise, the so-called racism of light-skinned coloreds (light-skinned blacks, Arabs, Indians, Hispanics etc.) toward dark-skinned coloreds is also because they internalize such ideas of supremacy (rather than actual racism).I couldn't disagree more. But to begin with, you should be a little more tactful with your language if you're going to approach this topic. Coloreds? Seriously. I think this usage is a bit archaic. Any serious analysis on race cannot play fast and loose with the language, and should particularly avoid using terms that have fallen out of favor with the dispossessed minorities you are trying to defend. As someone mentioned earlier, you must put the person before the adjective, both figuratively and grammatically. I think I speak for most people of color when I say that we prefer it this way. Coloreds and colored people is a derogatory use of language. I'm not going to go into why the same words are derogatory when you simple change the order around, because that would take some serious look into the black and Latino scholarship. I think fundamentally it has to do with not defining a person based on their "color" which is easier to do when the adjective comes first which gives weight to the color and not the person.

You have some other serious issues in your analysis. You should really define racism before you try to use it to categorize behavior or beliefs.

You seem also seem to think that racism is mostly about color. This is debatable, however, I think color receives undue stress in racism (not racist) discourses here on revleft. Let's take a couple of examples. First, many Caribbean blacks have problems assimilating to black culture in the US. This mostly happens only after the second and third generations. This is not all that strange, since regardless of race, first generation immigrants have a harder time assimilating than their native born children. However, my point is that Caribbean blacks experience discrimination from US blacks, even though skin tone may not really be all that different.

Second of all, I was surprised at how many (intelligent) people reified the category "white" by removing the historical context (yet accusing others of the same). What we consider white today is definitely not what was considered white in the past. We have to remember that no body is really white. Everybody in the world is some shade of brown, or reddish brown. People seem to see the pink and red when they look at "white" people, but simply ask any artist that has experience painting or drawing color pictures of people and they will tell you how difficult it is to realistically paint people without using some shade of brown. But it's not only that. Many of the people we consider "white" today were actually racial minorities in the past. The thing was, skin tone did not factor in as heavily into the racial classification system. But it was still racism. So it's pretty fucking ignorant for people to cite the history of Irish oppression as an example of white against white discrimination, and not racism, because it clearly was racism. It's only that back then race was constructed differently than it was today. Similar things could be said of Italian and Jews. You might enjoy this link, it really drives home my point rather forcefully:
http://kbosweeney.wordpress.com/2010/09/04/a-look-back-at-the-golden-age-of-racism%E2%80%A6%E2%80%A6%E2%80%A6%E2%80%A6/

In short, racism is essentially white against black and other forms are either reactions or born of internalizing white supremacist concepts. Would this conclusion be reasonable?
Absolutely not in the past. Today, I'd say there is a grain of truth to what you say. However, you clumsily fumble around some difficult concepts and end up sounding a bit reductionist. The way race is constructed as a system of beliefs is usually a white-other dichotomy (particularly among racists). The way race has played out in the past and even today is much more complicated. We should also not forget that ones position in the social hierarchy is not solely determined by race. Class, gender, orientation, ability, looks, weight etc. Many many things contribute to ones position of relative privilege in society. It is worth looking at statistics to really get at what's going on. Take interracial relationships, for example. White men just looooove telling people that their wife or girlfriend or significant other is of some racial minority. Ironically enough, this is not an indication of the absence of racism in the least (and there are plenty of sociologists who challenge that intermarriage can categorically be used as an index of tolerance in any particular country or region). Fact is, white men marry into racial minorities at rates higher than white women, particularly when the minorities are Hispanic and Asian. To offer this as evidence of your lack of racism is somewhat like saying you're the white manager at a business with mostly black workers. It's really kind of dumb.

So yeah, a lot to consider, and I'm merely touching on the tip of the iceberg.

red cat

28th November 2010, 19:46

Red Cat- seeing as you are a reasonable person with which to debate, I'll concentrate on your points.

My line of argument here is with the OP.

No one would deny that in certain geopolitical areas and periods average whites have been better off than average non-whites.

However- the OP is stating that racism is basically a white phenomenon and only white people can be racist, disregarding plenty of non-white racism too.

Japanese were racist towards Chinese during their imperialist expansion. Also, we have already seen that non-whites take part in racism in India.

From a proletarian point of view, racism should be dealt with- but this idiotic approach here is not the answer. The best way to deal with racism is to get the proletariat to eradicate the whole notion of race from their mindsets, and that cannot be done if one group is made into a target. The white people like the one who was beaten up for example, probably don't belong to a privileged class and thus to deny that racism was involved in that case because of "white privilege" is nonsense.The proletariat mostly concentrates on the class war. But what do you expect a black worker to do to a white worker if he practices racist hatred towards blacks and prefers to help a white capitalist rather than his own black class-brothers ? In India, very often a brahmin worker will treat his fellow dalit workers as dirt. Of course, the option is to win over more passive racists, but it does not work sometimes.

On the Khmer Rouge- well, their racist anti-non-Khmer rhetoric and actions are well documented. Not convincing. :p

Have you never wondered how strange it is that racism seems to disappear when you look at things horizontally and not vertically going up the social ladder?

The real rich capitalists and the "aristocracy" don't care about your colour, they care about your class and your nice big Swiss Bank Account.... ;) Whilst the EDL noobs are hating Arabs and there are the Muslims against Crusaders lunatics on the streets in Britain, the Queen and the Arab Sheikhs are having a good laugh together looking at their collections of thoroughbred racehorses. This is true for the ruling classes, but in general not true for the oppressed classes. Racial differences exist within the oppressed classes and are often used by the oppressors to turn sections of the oppressed against one another, and to create a slightly privileged class among the oppressed themselves.

The whole notion of race in a modern sense- is a tool to divide the proletariat and create boundaries that shouldn't be there. What the OP is doing however is reinforcing something that serves the very purpose the left is supposed to be against. Very often, the whole working class attacking a socially privileged minority within itself, that belongs to the racist community, is portrayed as reverse-racism. As I have mentioned before, a worker who consistently remains a hardcore racist always shifts towards the bourgeoisie. So it is correct to treat him as a class enemy. This is a form of class struggle.

You can't reify a notion such as "white privilege", say that "only" white people can be racist and then not alienate a large number of non-privileged white people- who happen also to be proletarians too.White privilege does not mean that all white people or only white people are racist.

Lt. Ferret

28th November 2010, 19:53

I'm part spanish and my wife is arab how guilty should i feel about something i didnt do?

Bud Struggle

28th November 2010, 19:59

I'm part spanish and my wife is arab how guilty should i feel about something i didnt do?

Please feel welcome to feel guilty for the slave trade in Blacks and killing the Incas and the Colonialism in Africa.

Comrade it was all YOUR FAULT!!!

;)

ComradeMan

28th November 2010, 20:02

Japanese were racist towards Chinese during their imperialist expansion. Also, we have already seen that non-whites take part in racism in India.

Japan still has a lot of racism towards other Far Eastern immigrants.

The proletariat mostly concentrates on the class war. But what do you expect a black worker to do to a white worker if he practices racist hatred towards blacks and prefers to help a white capitalist rather than his own black class-brothers ? In India, very often a brahmin worker will treat his fellow dalit workers as dirt. Of course, the option is to win over more passive racists, but it does not work sometimes.

Kick his sorry racist ass--- but.... don't fall into the trap of saying because one person is like this all of the rest of them are- because that's racism too. The Brahmins sound like they can be pretty nasty at times- could you explain more about this because you have the knowledge.

Not convincing. :p

Just don't tell Milk we are discussing this... ;) :lol: :tt2::tt2:

This is true for the ruling classes, but in general not true for the oppressed classes. Racial differences exist within the oppressed classes and are often used by the oppressors to turn sections of the oppressed against one another, and to create a slightly privileged class among the oppressed themselves.

Yeah....... THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING! :thumbup1:
I would go further in saying that racial differences are created- okay, there are cultural differences, but these are exploited and turned into racial differences for exactly that purpose. Like if you don't eat pork that's fine, but if I eat pork someone starts telling you I am a filthy kuffar, or whatever else in any direction.

Very often, the whole working class attacking a socially privileged minority within itself, that belongs to the racist community, is portrayed as reverse-racism. As I have mentioned before, a worker who consistently remains a hardcore racist always shifts towards the bourgeoisie. So it is correct to treat him as a class enemy. This is a form of class struggle.

Yes-- you are right, any racist should be treated as an enemy of humanity in general- regardless of colour or background.

White privilege does not mean that all white people or only white people are racist.

I know that, you know that- how about telling the OP that too! ;)

But I still don't like the term- to be honest, thinking about the political side-effects it has and how it can be misused, like in the OP's case.

Â¿Que?

28th November 2010, 20:07

I'm part spanish and my wife is arab how guilty should i feel about something i didnt do?
That's really up to you and your wife, really. I'm not one to deny the agency of women.

Lt. Ferret

28th November 2010, 20:12

That's really up to you and your wife, really. I'm not one to deny the agency of women.

shes also a libertarian atheist so this might ratchet it up a bit.

red cat

28th November 2010, 20:15

Â¿Que?

28th November 2010, 20:30

Skooma Addict

28th November 2010, 20:51

5) White privilege exists, with an average white being better off than an average black. However, this does not mean that all whites are racist or there are no white workers or black capitalists.

I assume you believe in Asian privilege as well?

Reznov

28th November 2010, 21:00

I would say that it is harder, overall, to be a black working class person than a white working class person. Does this matter? Probably not because I don't think we can really get rid of racism and privilege in any meaningful capacity under capitalism.

Thank you for confirming what I just wrote.

Manic Impressive

28th November 2010, 23:16

3) Racism needs to be addressed as an issue parallel to the class question.I'd only disagree with this because racism is part of class struggle and can only be defeated through class unity. Making it separate and of equal importance encourages people to play the identity politics game and undermines class struggle. I'm not trying to undermine the importance of racial struggles as they are extremely important as MLK said "our freedom is intrinsically linked." We can only win our free through unity.

RÃªve Rouge

28th November 2010, 23:51

I think the main debates in this thread have been concluded in the last few posts. Here is a summary:

1) The most dominant form of racism is white racism.

2) Other types of racism exist as well, and are often equally as reactionary.

3) Racism needs to be addressed as an issue parallel to the class question.

4) A racist worker is reactionary, and it is correct to take violent actions against him if he tries to harm workers belonging to oppressed communities or races.

5) White privilege exists, with an average white being better off than an average black. However, this does not mean that all whites are racist or there are no white workers or black capitalists.

Good quick analysis. Although I'm gonna have to agree with Manic regarding point 3). Racism is an issue that needs to be addressed, but making it an equal struggle alongside with class might as Manic put it, "encourage people to play the identity politics game". This may in fact create a rift within the working class, therefore lead to point 4). Also, I'll have to agree with ComradeMan on the point about the KR being racist. The KR was in fact ethnocentric. If you go visit the Tuol Slaeng Museum (S-21 Prison), you'll see that there is a separate column of photographs of Vietnamese prisoners. For the most part, the KR viewed the Vietnamese as spies. The Chinese and the Chams (ethnic minority) were also persecuted on the basis of their ethnicities. Ironic though considering that most of the top head KR's were Cambodians mixed with Chinese blood (e.g. Pol Pot).

red cat

29th November 2010, 05:32

I'd only disagree with this because racism is part of class struggle and can only be defeated through class unity. Making it separate and of equal importance encourages people to play the identity politics game and undermines class struggle. I'm not trying to undermine the importance of racial struggles as they are extremely important as MLK said "our freedom is intrinsically linked." We can only win our free through unity.

It is wrong to think that the main forms of class struggle alone will solve sexism, racism, LGBT discrimination etc. In fact, these problems have often been wrongly treated even after socialist revolutions. In general the proletariat clings on to its prejudices even after the revolution, and the defeated bourgeoisie can use these to come back to power. So, unless these issues are assigned equal or even greater importance wherever required, it is impossible to achieve complete victory in class struggle.

Manic Impressive

29th November 2010, 05:49

It is wrong to think that the main forms of class struggle alone will solve sexism, racism, LGBT discrimination etc. In fact, these problems have often been wrongly treated even after socialist revolutions. In general the proletariat clings on to its prejudices even after the revolution, and the defeated bourgeoisie can use these to come back to power. So, unless these issues are assigned equal or even greater importance wherever required, it is impossible to achieve complete victory in class struggle.
They can't be completely solved pre-revolution, unity amongst one class would help (it certainly has for the bourgeois). These problems cannot be solved in a world of scarcity where we are forced to compete with each other for our very survival. The only way it's ever going to end is to remove the forces which condition these views, the only way to do that is through class unity. So no racial struggles should never take a higher priority than class, but with a united class we can start to fight back as we can witness with the anti-fascist groups. Regarding your point about previous revolutions times have changed many more countries are multi ethnic making revolution impossible without inter-racial unity within a class.

Milk Sheikh

29th November 2010, 05:57

First of all, saying 'everyone can be racist' is too vague to make any sense. Yes, it is possible that anyone can become a murderer, so? Does that mean we ignore the people who actually commit murder? What is more important - fact or possibility?

Second, white privilege is so evident that it requires no explanation. Third, so-called nonwhite racism with examples ranging from Idi Amin to Japan to Khmer Rouge. Well, let's consider one example: Idi vs Indians. Idi is a nonwhite. So are Indians. How can it be racism when both parties belong to the same race? If a white German were to abuse a white British, is that racism (since they both belong to the same race)? At best, you can call it nationalism. So my point is that so-called nonwhite racism is essentially hyper-nationalism.

Finally, the question is why? Well, that's easy. A person who is repeatedly bullied becomes a bully himself and starts looking for a weaker prey. We see this on all levels even in our own lives. So perhaps, nonwhite nationalism has to be understood in this context. Brushing it aside as 'everyone can racist, see Idi Amin for proof' is a silly, irrational view.

red cat

29th November 2010, 05:59

They can't be completely solved pre-revolution, unity amongst one class would help (it certainly has for the bourgeois). These problems cannot be solved in a world of scarcity where we are forced to compete with each other for our very survival. The only way it's ever going to end is to remove the forces which condition these views, the only way to do that is through class unity. So no racial struggles should never take a higher priority than class, but with a united class we can start to fight back as we can witness with the anti-fascist groups. Regarding your point about previous revolutions times have changed many more countries are multi ethnic making revolution impossible without inter-racial unity within a class.

I agree with you in that these cannot be solved pre-revolution. But it is true that sometimes these issues technically require greater field-attention than class-struggle, in order to start militant class-struggle itself. A good example is a dalit village in India. In order to obtain the first cadres without being detected, communist women often hold the first discussion sessions on feminism, with the doubly oppressed dalit women who come to bathe in the village pond. Thus sexism assumes greatest importance. The next stage is to start with a mild protest and rally the masses against the class oppressors. Again, to do this quickly without being reported by spies, communists will address the caste-question (to be read race-question) and organize related protests by leading the masses to violate caste laws. This in general succeeds in making the locals take radical sides in favour or against the ruling class and militant class struggle can then be started.

ComradeMan

29th November 2010, 12:13

Second, white privilege is so evident that it requires no explanation. Third, so-called nonwhite racism with examples ranging from Idi Amin to Japan to Khmer Rouge. Well, let's consider one example: Idi vs Indians. Idi is a nonwhite. So are Indians. How can it be racism when both parties belong to the same race? If a white German were to abuse a white British, is that racism (since they both belong to the same race)? At best, you can call it nationalism. So my point is that so-called nonwhite racism is essentially hyper-nationalism.

so evident that it requires no explanation

Is it? I don't think it is and in a global context it's not necessarily appropriate.

Idi vs Indians. Idi is a nonwhite. So are Indians. How can it be racism when both parties belong to the same race?

You are conveniently (for your argument) using a definition of racism which appears to be yours alone. So Idi Amin was an Indian? Now, race may be a social construct that shouldn't be subscribed to, but unfortunately most people in the world subscribe to some ethnic definition of themselves. To say Idi Amin was targetting his own race as Indians- which even he did not believe in order to support your crumbling argument is nothing more than rather crude sophistry.

We are determined to make the ordinary Ugandan master of his own destiny, and above all to see that he enjoys the wealth of his country. Our deliberate policy is to transfer the economic control of Uganda into the hands of Ugandans, for the first time in our country's history.
—Idi Amin, quoted in Uganda: a modern history.

Amin clearly did not see the Indian population as being Ugandan.

You are attempting to create a fictitious definition of race as quite simply "white" and "non-white"- I don't think I have ever read any literature to support that view.

You are also basing your notions of race on a biological phenotype- that is quite racist in itself ironically, but I don't think that's your intention. If you take a social-science definition of race as a social construct then there is no justification for a biological phenotype definition?

I am not quite sure how you actually define race and racism? It's not clear.

Race is a social concept and discourse that refers to the classifications of humans into populations or groups based on various factors, such as their culture, language, social practice or heritable characteristics.

As a biological term, race denotes genetically divergent human populations that can be marked by common phenotypic traits.

From a Wiki sourced note (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_humans)#cite_note-0)

Either way using the social or biological definitions I don't see how you can reasonably argue that Idi Amin was targetting his own race. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny on any basis.

The rest of your point is without any support. There was an Irishman in Britain who successfully lodged a complaint with the racial relations board for racial abuse from English colleagues at work and I believe there was also a case of a British man in Dublin who successfully pursued a case.

Now- what about the Jews in Germany? Was that not racism? Considering the Jews were "white" too? That was racial anti-semitism, not anti-Judaism.

red cat

29th November 2010, 20:45

Totally agreed with the above, except for the white privilege thing. It's too evident. :p

ComradeMan

29th November 2010, 20:50

Totally agreed with the above, except for the white privilege thing. It's too evident. :p

The trouble with white privilege is that it may be true in places like the USA or even South Africa or post-colonial nations with a significant European colonial population, but here in Europe, excluding nations such as Britain, France and the Netherlands with large former colonial immigrant populations- many places have only recently really had any non-European immigration of note. It just doesn't seem to work universally but the term "white" makes it pretty damn universal sounding.

Could you talk about white privilege in the former Eastern Bloc countries? In Italy? Especially areas of Europe where people have very often endured equal levels of hardship and injustice historically it gets a bit awkward to talk about white privilege... if you see what I mean?

red cat

29th November 2010, 20:56

The trouble with white privilege is that it may be true in places like the USA or even South Africa or post-colonial nations with a significant European colonial population, but here in Europe- especially places in Europe that have only recently really had any non-European immigration of note then it just doesn't work.

Could you talk about white privilege in the former Eastern Bloc countries? In Italy? Especially areas of Europe where people have very often endured equal levels of hardship and injustice historically it gets a bit awkward to talk about white privilege... if you see what I mean?

There is racism in Europe. Russia has the largest number of racists in the world. Some of my friends who have been to Europe have faced racism.

ComradeMan

29th November 2010, 20:57

Of course there is racism in Europe--- but does it conform to historical white privelege notions from the US?- it's just plain racism to me.

To speak about historical "white privilege" in nations like Poland or non-Asiatic Russia- would be difficult.

Also, the OP's point would make it difficult to assess some forms of racism.

What about in Germany towards Turkish "gastarbeiter" immigrants for an example- Turkish people are not "black" are they?

Milk Sheikh

30th November 2010, 06:58

Could you talk about white privilege in the former Eastern Bloc countries? In Italy? Especially areas of Europe where people have very often endured equal levels of hardship and injustice historically it gets a bit awkward to talk about white privilege... if you see what I mean?

Even if the poorest of the Italians or Eastern Europeans were to go to Russia, they wouldn't be attacked by skinheads over there. Why do you think that is? It's because their skin color gives them protection, the sort of protection which a dark-skinned person will never get even if he happens to have a million dollars.

In short, whites have the terrific advantage of being protected no matter where they go or live, simply because they have the 'right' skin color; people of color, on the other hand, have no such privilege.

ComradeMan

30th November 2010, 09:51

Even if the poorest of the Italians or Eastern Europeans were to go to Russia, they wouldn't be attacked by skinheads over there. Why do you think that is? It's because their skin color gives them protection, the sort of protection which a dark-skinned person will never get even if he happens to have a million dollars.

In short, whites have the terrific advantage of being protected no matter where they go or live, simply because they have the 'right' skin color; people of color, on the other hand, have no such privilege.

That's actually bullshit. A lot of Italians emigrated to countries like Belgium, Germany and Switzerland in the 1950s, like the Turkish gastarbeiter. Especially in Germany there was a lot of prejudice against the "dirty, thieving, philandering" Italians. Let's face it- at face values, i.e. based on appearance, a lot of Turkish people would be indestinguishable from Italians and vice versa too- namely they were "white".

Many of these Italians made their money and came back, out of nostalgia for their own country of course but also because they faced a lot of prejudice in Northern Europe. "Itay" "Itak" "Dego" "Ice-creamo" "Wop" - yeah, those are all words for Italians, and I heard people saying that shit in London too. If you look at the Italian experience in America as well- there was a lot of prejudice against them- they may have been European but they weren't WASPS- and they didn't have "money". So, your analysis is too general.*

In more recent times there has been a lot of immigration to Italy from Eastern Europe, especially the Balkans, Ukraine, Poland and Russia. Especially people from the Balkans- notably Albanians, face a lot of prejudice in Italy, a hell of a lot of prejudice, they are "poor" they are "thieves" they are "uncivilised" and all the usual racist rhetoric- but, hey- they're white so it doesn't count in your books. In fact there is probably more prejudice against Romanians and Albanians who are European than there is against non-Europeans like Mauritians, Persians and Chinese people- of whom there are significant immigrant populations now.

So you're talking out of your ass.

It's not about skin-colour, it's about being poor, vulnerable, immigrants and not part of the majority culture- it's a shit side of human nature and people are treated badly because of it.

No one ever seems to mind skin-colour so much if it comes with a healthy bank account...

*The largest mass lynching in American history involved the lynching of eleven Italians in the city of New Orleans in 1891. The Italians, who were thought to have assassinated police chief David Hennessy, were arrested and placed in a jail cell before being brutally murdered by a lynch mob that stormed the jailhouse, with witnesses claiming that the cheers "were nearly deafening". Cries of "hang the dagos" were heard throughout the riot. Reporting on the incident, one newspaper reported. Afterwards, hundreds of Italian immigrants, most of whom were not criminals, were arrested by law enforcement. Decades after, an anti-Italian phrase, "Who kill-a the chief?" remained popular in the New Orleans area.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Italianism#Violence_against_Italians)

#FF0000

30th November 2010, 10:08

ComradeMan

30th November 2010, 10:36

I am pretty sure that if you have an Italian immigrant walking down the street next to a middle eastern immigrant in Russia, one is more likely to be beaten to death and I don't think it's very hard to guess which.

Well, it's a sad probablity- but the OP is making blanket statements that are not applicable to a whole host of examples.

Again, you're applying the situation as it may be in the US to the entire world- one size fits all- pile your ideology up high and knock if off cheap for everyone- pretty damn capitalistic mentality lurking underneath there.

#FF0000

30th November 2010, 10:48

Again, you're applying the situation as it may be in the US to the entire world- one size fits all- pile your ideology up high and knock if off cheap for everyone- pretty damn capitalistic mentality lurking underneath there.

Yeah I mean it's not like I said a million times that I acknowledged that it might not hold for every country on the planet.

Milk Sheikh

30th November 2010, 11:02

Again, you're applying the situation as it may be in the US to the entire world- one size fits all- pile your ideology up high and knock if off cheap for everyone- pretty damn capitalistic mentality lurking underneath there.

Actually, this is common throughout the world and has nothing to do with the US in particular. No matter which country, a darker person is going to be treated with less respect, regardless of his nationality, social status, religion, or whatever else. Your examples don't disprove this either, because yours were all class-based conflicts, whereas I am specifically talking about skin color. If you still say I am wrong, then what about the Russia example I provided?

red cat

30th November 2010, 11:06

Of course there is racism in Europe--- but does it conform to historical white privelege notions from the US?- it's just plain racism to me.

But it is mostly the non-whites who are discriminated against by whites, and again an average white there is much better off than a non-white. It all adds up to the same thing.

To speak about historical "white privilege" in nations like Poland or non-Asiatic Russia- would be difficult.

Also, the OP's point would make it difficult to assess some forms of racism.
East European countries had been subject to socialism for a long time. So the white privilege there might not be very noticeable. However, a common feature of a racism inspired movement itself is that the most well-off group tries to label and accuse a particular community for the general economic condition of the nation, and discriminates against it. This is the case in Russia, where the better off whites are discriminating against the central Asian immigrants.

What about in Germany towards Turkish "gastarbeiter" immigrants for an example- Turkish people are not "black" are they?This does not change the fact that white privilege exists. It only shows that there is intra-white racism too. In this case, the racist group is European-white-Aryan or something like that.

ComradeMan

30th November 2010, 13:09

But it is mostly the non-whites who are discriminated against by whites, and again an average white there is much better off than a non-white. It all adds up to the same thing.

"White trash"? "Crackers"? "Trailer trash"? :( I don't think the people who are labelled with those complimentary adjectives would be considered privileged nor would they be welcome by typical "white" bourgeois snobs.

I don't think talking in averages is very helpful, and yet again we are bringing this back to the US for the most part- which was not stated in the OP nor was it made clear by the OP-poster in subsequent comments.

East European countries had been subject to socialism for a long time. So the white privilege there might not be very noticeable. However, a common feature of a racism inspired movement itself is that the most well-off group tries to label and accuse a particular community for the general economic condition of the nation, and discriminates against it. This is the case in Russia, where the better off whites are discriminating against the central Asian immigrants.

That happens, but I don't honestly believe it's about skin-colour, I believe it's about class hierarchies. Poor immigrants are a minority, they are viewed negatively by "snobs" and they have the weakest voice in society, the fact they are white or non-white doesn't affect this- it's far too superficial an interpretation in my opinion.

Or there is the reverse when the immigrant minority is being seen to do well it can become targetted too, as in Uganda against the Indian/Asian population.

This does not change the fact that white privilege exists. It only shows that there is intra-white racism too. In this case, the racist group is European-white-Aryan or something like that.

White "privilege" exists for wealthy privileged white people- not all white people are wealthy and privileged. But to use a blanket term like "white privilege" which originated in the US as a result of US history and the US system etc and then apply it to the world is not a good way to do things.

Most "proletarians" have been discriminated against in any number of ways in all societies- when the superficial element of race is added it becomes racism, however fundamentally its classism- like I say, the poorer immigrants are targetted for racism, say a Moroccan family- usually by fellow "proletarians" and yet the extremely bourgeois/aristocratic Arab oil magnate would probably never experience prejudice at all.

Reznov

1st December 2010, 02:20

The Red Next Door

1st December 2010, 17:03

There were time that Polish, Italians, Irish, eastern European people was not consider even to be white by the American and English establishment; Fuck you have Polish immigrants getting killed because they are Polish in The united KKKingdom.

RGacky3

1st December 2010, 19:37

The united KKKingdom.

Theres no KKK in the UK so that clever little spelling trick does'nt work, and it just looks silly.

Noinu

1st December 2010, 19:42

Theres no KKK in the UK so that clever little spelling trick does'nt work, and it just looks silly.

What about these then? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/366114.stm)

Edit: Sorry, I just can't keep this inside anymore, the ' comes between the n and the t, not before the nt. As in not 'does'nt' but 'doesn't'. The ' shows the place of the omitted letter o.

ComradeMan

1st December 2010, 19:55

Theres no KKK in the UK so that clever little spelling trick does'nt work, and it just looks silly.

does'nt work - just looks silly- LOL!!!

Gacky, seriusly, glasshouses and stones-- I do'nt think you should be calling peepul on speling, no offens! :lol:

Ele'ill

1st December 2010, 20:07

I'm going to go ahead and guess that the spelling wasn't the main point being made.

Noinu

1st December 2010, 20:08

I'm going to go ahead and guess that the spelling wasn't the main point being made.

Which also got an answer.

Ele'ill

1st December 2010, 20:09

Which also got an answer.

I don't think that was it either.

RGacky3

1st December 2010, 20:09

Noinu I'm pretty sure you told me about that stuff before, its a habit.

Also, you posted a story about a US group that is insignificant, even amung insignificant old school racists, planning to maybe get in the UK.

Doing the AmeriKKKA or the UKKK sort of thing is just silly, it does'nt serve any purpose and it makes you look like an unserious idiot and thus won't help a cause in talking to collage students about why Obama failed them.

Ele'ill

1st December 2010, 20:10

I don't mind spelling errors- I think it's a bit more petty to point them out than for the errors to exist to begin with.

Edit* Sorry- that should probably be pettier and not 'more petty to point out...' :rolleyes:

Noinu

1st December 2010, 20:11

Noinu I'm pretty sure you told me about that stuff before, its a habit.

I'm pretty sure I didn't :O but it wouldn't be the first time my memory does tricks to me. Oh well, said it again then XD
And seriously, no offence, it's just one of those things that really get to me ^^;;;

Noinu

1st December 2010, 20:12

I don't mind spelling errors- I think it's a bit more petty to point them out than for the errors to exist to begin with.

So people should just write completely ungrammatical language, 'cause it's petty to notice faults? You go ahead with that.

RGacky3

1st December 2010, 20:17

Noinu

1st December 2010, 20:19

When I write stuff on revleft I generally type fast and don't really pay much attention to grammer or spelling because its a discussion forum, I'm not writing a damn paper, and I assume that people here are interested in discussing ideas, if it gets SO bad that people don't know what I'm writing about then thats a different issue.

I'm sorry if it bothers you, if you really really want, I can spell check my posts before I post them, actually no I won't because its not really that important.

Really didn't mean to make this into a bloody WAR, I only pointed it out, because there is an actual logical reason for the ' to be there.

For your posts, on the other hand, what I would like you to do, is fact check before you post.

Noinu

1st December 2010, 20:21

Also, you posted a story about a US group that is insignificant, even amung insignificant old school racists, planning to maybe get in the UK.

Doing the AmeriKKKA or the UKKK sort of thing is just silly, it does'nt serve any purpose and it makes you look like an unserious idiot and thus won't help a cause in talking to collage students about why Obama failed them.

The fact still remains that there are groups even in the UK that see themselves as the KKK.

It's a style choice, it shows you're trying to emphasize a certain area of your post.

RGacky3

1st December 2010, 20:26

The fact still remains that there are groups even in the UK that see themselves as the KKK.

It's a style choice, it shows you're trying to emphasize a certain area of your post.

If thats what your counting is the KKK being in the UK then fine, if your trying to use that to say that I was wrong then thats pretty silly heres from the articlel.

The KKK has appeared in South Wales, in the form of a 50-year-old man called Alan Boscella. He has admitted past involvement with the group.

If your really gonna argue that this counts as the KKK being in england, and thus I'm wrong for saying that there is'nt a clan in England and saying the UKKK is silly, then fine, but the point is exactly the same.

Noinu

1st December 2010, 20:33

If thats what your counting is the KKK being in the UK then fine, if your trying to use that to say that I was wrong then thats pretty silly heres from the articlel.

Well seeing as it's rather odd to try and prove that no old member of the original KKK ever moved out of the States and to the UK. I posted the article to make sure you understood that just because something comes from the US, doesn't mean it's forever going to just stay in the US. Ever heard of globalisation?

If your really gonna argue that this counts as the KKK being in england, and thus I'm wrong for saying that there is'nt a clan in England and saying the UKKK is silly, then fine, but the point is exactly the same.

This discussion is pointless on so many levels. The KKK in the wording for United Kingdom didn't even reference to the group KKK! It's a reference to views of the group, e.g racism (which btw, pretty huge in the UK).
Not to mention Comrademan's right, if you want to point out something extremely silly in someone else's post, how about you try and make sure you don't have something equally as silly in your own post. Going to the whole thing about schools obviously not doing their jobs, 'cause someone uses 'KKK' in a situation like that, as if writing like you do was somehow proof of the school system only sucking for some.

RGacky3

1st December 2010, 20:58

I posted the article to make sure you understood that just because something comes from the US, doesn't mean it's forever going to just stay in the US. Ever heard of globalisation?

Fine and I agree, but that point has nothin gto do with what I was talking about, if you want to start a new discussion about globalization then make it.

The KKK in the wording for United Kingdom didn't even reference to the group KKK! It's a reference to views of the group, e.g racism (which btw, pretty huge in the UK).

How the hell does the KKK wording not reference the KKK? (I get the point about racism).

Not to mention Comrademan's right, if you want to point out something extremely silly in someone else's post, how about you try and make sure you don't have something equally as silly in your own post. Going to the whole thing about schools obviously not doing their jobs, 'cause someone uses 'KKK' in a situation like that, as if writing like you do was somehow proof of the school system only sucking for some.

You mean spelling mistakes? Being the silly thing in my point? Well if thats the worst criticism of my post then I'm doing ok.

Noinu

1st December 2010, 21:05

Fine and I agree, but that point has nothin gto do with what I was talking about, if you want to start a new discussion about globalization then make it.

Actually it did, you just obviously missed it.

How the hell does the KKK wording not reference the KKK? (I get the point about racism).

It only references the groups tendencies towards others. Not the actual organisation in itself. You seriously can't see the difference?

Half of the head masters our schools have had, have received the unfortunate nickname of Hitler, not because of racism, or even fascism, just because they act like dictators. There are different types of referencing.

You mean spelling mistakes? Being the silly thing in my point? Well if thats the worst criticism of my post then I'm doing ok.

Actually the criticism was directed at your post about school system obviously having lacked something. Well it's just as obvious when one sees your spelling. Do you now finally get the point, or do I have to explain this again?

ComradeMan

1st December 2010, 21:05

You mean spelling mistakes? Being the silly thing in my point? Well if thats the worst criticism of my post then I'm doing ok.

Gacky... I think it was a bit of a joke at first, but as usual with Mari3L's stirring it turns into a flamewar. You have the worst spelling I have ever seen from a native speaker of English here who wasn't drunk.. you have good days and bad days, but in general your spelling sucks- and we aren't just talking about typos. That is not a problem, it doesn't make a difference to what you are saying but it does make us laugh when you point out how someone else's spelling just looks silly... hence the comment about glass houses and stones!!!

Okay, lighten up already!!!

THE KKK thing is, like Noinu says, a reference to racism.

Funnily enough in Italy communists and people on the left often use the K from Karl Marx instead of a "c" etc- so it's the opposite in a way.

Noinu

1st December 2010, 21:06

Gacky... I think it was a bit of a joke at first, but as usual with Mari3L's stirring it turns into a flamewar. You have the worst spelling I have ever seen from a native speaker of English here who wasn't drunk.. you have good days and bad days, but in general your spelling sucks- and we aren't just talking about typos. That is not a problem, it doesn't make a difference to what you are saying but it does make us laugh when you point out how someone else's spelling just looks silly... hence the comment about glass houses and stones!!!

Okay, lighten up already!!!

THE KKK thing is, like Noinu says, a reference to racism.

Funnily enough in Italy communists and people on the left often use the K from Karl Marx instead of a "c" etc- so it's the opposite in a way.

Well even if I agree with the rest, I have to say the bolded part is a bit of an overstatement. There are a few with even worse grammar, although they might just be high.

Revolution starts with U

1st December 2010, 23:54

It makes YOU point and laugh comrade. Don't lump "us" in with "you."
Splelnig i'snt htat iprmotnat.

Ele'ill

1st December 2010, 23:54

So people should just write completely ungrammatical language, 'cause it's petty to notice faults? You go ahead with that.

The posts in question were not 'completely ungrammatical' :rolleyes:

Manic Impressive

2nd December 2010, 00:04

but it wouldn't be the first time my memory does tricks to me.

This should be "but it wouldn't be the first time my memory has played tricks on me." :p

Noinu

2nd December 2010, 17:57

This should be "but it wouldn't be the first time my memory has played tricks on me." :p

At least English is my FIFTH language, and not my first.

And btw, you don't have to use a present perfect in that instance.

Noinu

2nd December 2010, 17:58

The posts in question were not 'completely ungrammatical' :rolleyes:

You have noticed, haven't you, that your posts lack any sort of reference to the topic of the thread?
At least I answered something about racism, even if I had something off topic in the post.

Not to mention that that post was generalised, as was yours. You seriously got nothing better to do with your life than follow me and ComradeMan around, and post pointless comments?

Manic Impressive

2nd December 2010, 18:09

At least English is my FIFTH language, and not my first.

And btw, you don't have to use a present perfect in that instance.
Sorry comrade I was only joking, I felt like such an arse hole when I wrote that. But it's still correct :D

Noinu

2nd December 2010, 18:10

Sorry comrade I was only joking, I felt like such an arse hole when I wrote that. But it's still correct :D

Never said it wasn't.

Ele'ill

2nd December 2010, 18:25

You have noticed, haven't you, that your posts lack any sort of reference to the topic of the thread?

Yes, but my posts on the last two pages were replies to your off topic petty criticisms of someone's minute punctuation error.

At least I answered something about racism, even if I had something off topic in the post.

I was passively commenting on the off-topic portion of your post.

You seriously got nothing better to do with your life than follow me and ComradeMan around, and post pointless comments?

I have not posted anything to Comrademan in at least the last two pages. I felt your original post to Gacky was fairly useless and with a bit of hidden intention as you've apparently mentioned the same exact thing to him before.

I've made a point since that one day where everyone was fighting to avoid Comrademan's threads and conversations. I think it was a respectful decision.

As for racism I'll provide this link as it may interest some people- http://rosecityantifa.weebly.com/

ComradeMan

2nd December 2010, 20:07

Yes, but my posts on the last two pages were replies to your off topic petty criticisms of someone's minute punctuation error.

I was passively commenting on the off-topic portion of your post.

I have not posted anything to Comrademan in at least the last two pages. I felt your original post to Gacky was fairly useless and with a bit of hidden intention as you've apparently mentioned the same exact thing to him before.

I've made a point since that one day where everyone was fighting to avoid Comrademan's threads and conversations. I think it was a respectful decision.

As for racism I'll provide this link as it may interest some people- http://rosecityantifa.weebly.com/

Stop spamming and derailing threads with your shit-stirring and "passively" this, that and the other. It's transparent and for someone who accuses others of trolling all the time it's rather ironic that you are troll number one when it comes to just "passively" provoking. Take it to chatter otherwise...

Getting back to the discussion.

We were interested in notions of white privilege being applicable or non-applicable outside of the US.

Some here think they are whilst others reject this hypothesis. This is interesting because it also shows what great differences there are in perception and geopolitical bias.