Racism

[balaclava]

Can I know how the RevLeft, the moderators and members of this forum define racism? What is racist what is not racist? Seems like an easy question but I suspect that you are going to make it horribly complicated – prove me wrong.

[ComradeMan]

What's your definition?

[#FF0000]

I use the definition that a lot of different sociologists use when they define racism as a system of one group over another.

I don't like to quote wikipedia but this is a p. good summary of what I'm talking about.


Some sociologists have defined racism as a system of group privilege. In Portraits of White Racism, David Wellman has defined racism as "culturally sanctioned beliefs, which, regardless of intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have because of the subordinated position of racial minorities”.[8] Sociologists Noël A. Cazenave and Darlene Alvarez Maddern define racism as “...a highly organized system of 'race'-based group privilege that operates at every level of society and is held together by a sophisticated ideology of color/'race' supremacy. Sellers and Shelton (2003) found that a relationship between racial discrimination and emotional distress was moderated by racial ideology and public regard beliefs. That is, racial centrality appears to promote the degree of discrimination African American young adults perceive whereas racial ideology may buffer the detrimental emotional effects of that discrimination. Racist systems include, but cannot be reduced to, racial bigotry,”.[9] Sociologist and former American Sociological Association president Joe Feagin argues that the United States can be characterized as a "total racist society"[10]

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

I don't usually call racial bigotry or discrimination on an individual basis "racism". I call it racial bigotry or discrimination.

[Triple A]

Racists are people that think one race is superior to another or that base decisions in an individual race's
I'd say there are two types or racists.
Racists by ignorance like old people that dont know people from other races or were raised under a racist system. Even tough they have a racist behaviour I do not blaim them.
On the other hand we have racists with conviction like stormfront guys. This people find all the strage arguments to say a race is superior. Usualy they have some problems of childood and end up blaiming other races for their stupidity.

[ComradeMan]

I'd say it's quite simply putting the adjective of ethnicity before the individual and all the generalising and prejudice that stems from that.

[Rêve Rouge]

Would ethnicity discrimination be a considered a part racism? Or is racism purely a racial matter?

e.g. A Han Chinese makes discriminatory remarks on a Lao people for being "low class". Racism or not? Both are of the same Asian race.

[Revolution starts with U]

Not technically racism, but ethnic discrimination. Concurrently, a lot of racism stems from ethnocentrism tho.

[Rafiq]

Well, look at this:

Nationalism : Extreme pride in your Nation

Raceism : Extreme pride in your Race.

[ComradeMan]

Would ethnicity discrimination be a considered a part racism? Or is racism purely a racial matter?

e.g. A Han Chinese makes discriminatory remarks on a Lao people for being "low class". Racism or not? Both are of the same Asian race.

The trouble with race... is well, the definitions are not really that clear.

I would certainly call ethnic discrimination a form of racism.

ethnicity: from Greek ἔθνος ethnos, normally translated as "nation".

race: from Italian razza, from Lombardic "clan", "bloodline" or "group".

Given that clans and nations, races were once more or less the same, i.e. tribal groups and also that ethnicity and race are used in modern times synonymously, I think there is justification.

In modern Italian "razza" means "type" or "kind"- so a homophobic person could also be a "razzista".

[balaclava]

What's your definition?

Good question. At a point in time it became apparent that some people were discriminating against others on the basis of their race/colour. For example they would not employ a certain race or colour or they would not take as tenants certain races/colours. That was clearly wrong and legislation was introduced to make it illegal to discriminate (and a good thing that was). Next came the suggestion that it was wrong to insult another race. Again, I and no right minded person is going to argue with that; of course the problem there is what is deemed to be an insult and what is freedom of speech.

I ask this question here because I have formed the view that it is the left that has driven the definition to the extreme edge so that even asking the question can be deemed racist.

Let’s start with what is a race?

[ComradeMan]

Let’s start with what is a race?

Well, there is an etymology above-

But "race" itself is a very polemic issue and difficult to define.

Social construct?

[balaclava]

Would ethnicity discrimination be a considered a part racism? Or is racism purely a racial matter?

e.g. A Han Chinese makes discriminatory remarks on a Lao people for being "low class". Racism or not? Both are of the same Asian race.

Good example - I would argue that once you expand the definition of racism beyond colour you are then not talking about race but culture. The question that follows is, is it wrong to discriminate against another culture?

[ComradeMan]

Good example - I would argue that once you expand the definition of racism beyond colour you are then not talking about race but culture. The question that follows is, is it wrong to discriminate against another culture?

But race did not really imply colour.... not to begin with anyway.

Colour is a very bad "indicator" of race in my opinion-

[Rêve Rouge]

Good example - I would argue that once you expand the definition of racism beyond colour you are then not talking about race but culture. The question that follows is, is it wrong to discriminate against another culture?

Definitely yes. Ethnic cultures give that extra diversity and uniqueness in the world. To discriminate any ethnic culture is an attack on diversity and people within those cultures.

Although I believe some revlefters see all cultures as unnecessary social constructs. Well I would find the world pretty dull and boring if we followed the same culture and customs. But on the other hand, the working class would definitely be more united that way...

[balaclava]

Raceism : Extreme pride in your Race.

Hmmm, is this the RevLeft definition of racism?

[Bud Struggle]

Well, look at this:

Nationalism : Extreme pride in your Nation

Raceism : Extreme pride in your Race.

What REALLY is the difference?

[balaclava]

Definitely yes. Ethnic cultures give that extra diversity and uniqueness in the world. To discriminate any ethnic culture is an attack on diversity and people within those cultures.
...

What about (for example) a culture that is racist, is it OK to discriminate against a racist culture?

[RGacky3]

What about (for example) a culture that is racist, is it OK to discriminate against a racist culture?

I don't know any culture who's defining feature is racism.

[ComradeMan]

What about (for example) a culture that is racist, is it OK to discriminate against a racist culture?

This is leading to Islamic culture isn't it? Or am I wrong? Or are you being disingenuous?

Yes- two wrongs don't make a right.

Matching stupidity with stupidity is not a solution.

[#FF0000]

Hmmm, is this the RevLeft definition of racism?

No. I think it's pretty apparent that we all have slightly different definitions of "racism". It's a strange word.

[Rêve Rouge]

What about (for example) a culture that is racist, is it OK to discriminate against a racist culture?

Hmm a culture that is inherently racist...Well I haven't came across one before. You know I'm not quite sure how to answer that question. You've stumped me!

[ComradeMan]

I may be wrong but I think I know where this member is going to go with this argument.

Prepare for the jihad.

:crying:

[Revolution starts with U]

You can and should discriminate against a culture that is discriminatory, if those discriminations are institutionalized (and probably even if they aren't). Nelson Mandella wasn't fighting the white's of S Africa, he was fighting the culture of apartheid.

[Rafiq]

What REALLY is the difference?

... The difference between Nation and Race?

Uhm... That's a little obvious

[Rafiq]

Hmmm, is this the RevLeft definition of racism?

No, only if you are bing politically correct.

The Revleft definition is basically discriminating against one's Race or Ethnicity.

And usually use this word to describe Xenophobic people.

[Rafiq]

What about (for example) a culture that is racist, is it OK to discriminate against a racist culture?

I've never heard of one, except European ones...

If you're talking about 'Islamic' culture, no, it isn't fucking Racist. Arab culture isn't racist either. You can tell because the Arab slave trade was completely non-racial.

I have way more experience with Muslims and Islam than you do, and I can promise you it isn't racist.

Your aren't going to get an excuse for discriminating against people, so stop trolling.

That's just stupid.

[scarletghoul]

Racism is when you view people as separate races.

[ComradeMan]

I've never heard of one, except European ones...

If you're talking about 'Islamic' culture, no, it isn't fucking Racist. Arab culture isn't racist either. You can tell because the Arab slave trade was completely non-racial.

I have way more experience with Muslims and Islam than you do, and I can promise you it isn't racist.

Your aren't going to get an excuse for discriminating against people, so stop trolling.

That's just stupid.

So Arab's can't be racist? What's a "hoobshi" then?

The slave trade wasn't racial? Well, then the European slave trade wasn't racial either...

Come off it!

Nevertheless, I know where Balaclava is going with this, and I think we've done that thread to be honest....

[#FF0000]

Good question. At a point in time it became apparent that some people were discriminating against others on the basis of their race/colour. For example they would not employ a certain race or colour or they would not take as tenants certain races/colours. That was clearly wrong and legislation was introduced to make it illegal to discriminate (and a good thing that was). Next came the suggestion that it was wrong to insult another race. Again, I and no right minded person is going to argue with that; of course the problem there is what is deemed to be an insult and what is freedom of speech.

To be honest I don't care about the 'freedom' to bully, demean, and intimidate people using ethnic or racial slurs.



I ask this question here because I have formed the view that it is the left that has driven the definition to the extreme edge so that even asking the question can be deemed racist.

Well that's because you're paranoid and ideologically blinkered.


Let’s start with what is a race?

Race is an classification of people based on arbitrary physical characteristics.

[#FF0000]

What about (for example) a culture that is racist, is it OK to discriminate against a racist culture?

1) What makes a culture racist?
2) Give me an example of a racist culture.
3) It probably doesn't matter anyway because people don't accept racism from any culture anyway, because racism is something that is present in almost every culture in some way.

[Jimmie Higgins]

People use "racism" interchangeably with "bigotry" but I think it's important to distinguish between systemic oppression and individual bigotry (so if people like, think "systemic racism" where I use the term "racism"). Racism is a systemic form of bigotry where one group in society is singled out for routine repression or forced into a second class status.

So anyone can be bigoted towards any group and have chaovanist ideas, but a "racist" on the other hand is someone who consciously supports, in deeds or viewpoints, the systemic racism in a society. So this would be like someone who supports profiling of latinos or arabs in the US or someone who is a hindu nationalist in India.

Yeah, it's messy because the definitions of race are fluid and artificial and don't fit. So sometimes racism comes with ideas about another group having inferior blood, genetics, or culture (religious or secular), but the end results are the same: a group in society singled out for second-class (or worse) status. More often than not, racism in the US today is usually justified by claims of cultural inferiority: "it's that hip-hop thug culture that keeps black people in poverty".

[synthesis]

What is a Jew? Okay, that sounds bad, but I hope I'll get my point across here. Both words have been used to mean different things to different people in different times and different places. To me, racism essentially denotes the "otherizing" of people based on their physical appearance and/or background, consciously or subconsciously. The line between ethnicity and race is blurry at best. Like most forms of bigotry, I think it's only relevant to socialism when it's used to prop up an economic order that depends on such social divisions to function.

[#FF0000]

To me, racism essentially denotes the "otherizing" of people based on their physical appearance and/or background, consciously or subconsciously

I like this definition a lot.

[balaclava]

I may be wrong but I think I know where this member is going to go with this argument.
:crying:

NO YOU DON'T

I have simple reasons for this question:

I need to know how racisms is defined by this forum to help me avoid being labelled racists and getting banned.

I want to discuss ‘sensitive’ issues and when the accusations start flying I need a reference point.

I suspect that, like fascism, the left has hijacked racism but I don’t know the extent to which it has been hijacked.

I believe that much of that ‘race’ question has got mixed up with issues of culture and I would like to discuss that with thinking people with alternative views.

That’s why I posed the question. In posing your supposition to my motives are you trying to steer the debate away from some issues/areas which you feel are taboo?

[ComradeMan]

I need to know how racisms is defined by this forum to help me avoid being labelled racists and getting banned.

You should not need to adjust your opinions if you are sincere, and a non-racist.

I want to discuss ‘sensitive’ issues and when the accusations start flying I need a reference point.

If you are not racist then discuss them away

This is RevLeft- accusations will start flying anyway... get used to it. :lol:

I suspect that, like fascism, the left has hijacked racism but I don’t know the extent to which it has been hijacked.

How does one "hijack" fascism and racism by the way? They're not aeroplanes....

I believe that much of that ‘race’ question has got mixed up with issues of culture and I would like to discuss that with thinking people with alternative views.

Explain more then, not posing vague statements...

That’s why I posed the question. In posing your supposition to my motives are you trying to steer the debate away from some issues/areas which you feel are taboo?

No, but given your previous and very recent stances on some matters it did somewhat condition the approach to this latest one of yours....

[Cane Nero]

If you're talking about 'Islamic' culture, no, it isn't fucking Racist. Arab culture isn't racist either. You can tell because the Arab slave trade was completely non-racial.

I have way more experience with Muslims and Islam than you do, and I can promise you it isn't racist.


When you enslave someone means that person was considered an inferior person in relation to whom enslaves.
So this is a kind of discrimination, but that is not related to race.

And not just the Islamists who are discriminating, Europeans and even indigenous peoples practiced slavery.

[RGacky3]

I believe that much of that ‘race’ question has got mixed up with issues of culture and I would like to discuss that with thinking people with alternative views.

That’s why I posed the question. In posing your supposition to my motives are you trying to steer the debate away from some issues/areas which you feel are taboo?


The definition of race does'nt matter, if you define it by skin color that does'nt make discriminating based on culture any better.

I could care less whether its racism or ethnic discrimination or religious discrimination (which usually ends up being ethnic discrimination), its all the same, it comes from the same place and ends with the same result.

[ComradeMan]

The definition of race does'nt matter, if you define it by skin color that does'nt make discriminating based on culture any better.

I could care less whether its racism or ethnic discrimination or religious discrimination (which usually ends up being ethnic discrimination), its all the same, it comes from the same place and ends with the same result.

British Labour Politician Ken Livingstone:

Racism is a uniquely reactionary ideology, used to justify the greatest crimes in history — the slave trade, the extermination of all original inhabitants of the Caribbean, the elimination of every native inhabitant of Tasmania, apartheid. The Holocaust was the ultimate, "industrialised" expression of racist barbarity.

Racism serves as the cutting edge of the most reactionary movements. An ideology that starts by declaring one human being inferior to another is the slope whose end is at Auschwitz. That is why I detest racism.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ken_Livingstone

[balaclava]

I need to know how racisms is defined by this forum to help me avoid being labelled racists and getting banned.
You should not need to adjust your opinions if you are sincere, and a non-racist.
.

From what I have seen (and you have seen more) you can get banned from this forum for asking the wrong question. I've just read through a (pinned) thread in the 'discrumination' topic area on the question "Is race a social construct;" there's a few people got banned in that thread including the OP!!

[Revolution starts with U]

"Don't be a (racist, homophobe, asshole, or douche) if you don't want to be called a (racist, homophobe, asshole, or douche)."

[balaclava]

British Labour Politician Ken Livingstone:
Racism An ideology that starts by declaring one human being inferior to another is the slope whose end is at Auschwitz.

I agree . . . I like the one human being inferior bit. I think the Auschwitz thing is a bit of stretch but I am starting to understand the love affair between the left and the Nazi’s. And, I am forming the view that the collective here agrees that there is not universally accepted definition of race.

That aside, starting with the absolutes on which (I presume) we all agree - that it is not only racist but is factually inaccurate to say that someone with skin colour A is superior or inferior to another person with skin colour B, we do ascribe to some groups certain cultural values which we identify as good, indifferent or bad. Someone above suggested that it was not racists to discriminate against a group who embraced certain cultural values citing specifically the Afrikaners and apartheid. Could we then extend that discrimination to other groups with similarly abhorrent cultural values?

[hatzel]

Someone above suggested that it was not racists to discriminate against a group who embraced certain cultural values citing specifically the Afrikaners and apartheid. Could we then extend that discrimination to other groups with similarly abhorrent cultural values?

I think it's a slippery slope. I mean, if you start saying it's okay to racially discriminate against people who racially discriminate...well, that's all tit-for-tat. If a black South African were to discriminate against an Afrikaner based on the latter's race, it's still racism, even if the excuse is given that the Afrikaner's race have historically oppressed the black's race...of course, if there is some other excuse, then it's not necessarily racism, but still I'd say that discriminating against an Afrikaner for his or her mere status as an Afrikaner is as racist as anything else. Though I know a lot of people who seem to have the idea that racism, sexism and a variety of other -isms only really count if it's from 'dominator' to 'dominated'. As an example, some might suggest that a guy smacking a girl's butt is sexist, as it supports the systems and so on, whilst a girl smacking a guy's butt is not sexist, as the prevailing systems of discrimination don't realise themselves in that direction. I could argue until I'm blue in the face, though, that the direction doesn't matter in these cases...so unless the Afrikaner in question holds whatever belief, does this or that, then it's definitely racism to discriminate against them. That's not saying it's automatically acceptable to discriminate against somebody in whatever way one pleases merely because one doesn't agree with their opinions, but that's a whole other debate...

[balaclava]

I know a lot of people who seem to have the idea that racism, sexism and a variety of other -isms only really count if it's from 'dominator' to 'dominated'. ...

Interesting point - Is it possible to say anything negative about a ‘dominated’ group and not be labelled a racist?

[ComradeMan]

I think it's a slippery slope. I mean, if you start saying it's okay to racially discriminate against people who racially discriminate...well, that's all tit-for-tat. If a black South African were to discriminate against an Afrikaner based on the latter's race, it's still racism, even if the excuse is given that the Afrikaner's race have historically oppressed the black's race....

That's a good point and you picked an extreme, and extremely good example.

It would be like if you, Krimskrams, started picking on Germans? For reasons I don't need to state- based on historical stuff.

Let's not forget that anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism relied on the "historicity" of deicide. Whether we believe that or not a lot of people took it in and because of that "historical fact" a lot suffering occurred.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What is a Jew? Okay, that sounds bad, but I hope I'll get my point across here. Both words have been used to mean different things to different people in different times and different places. To me, racism essentially denotes the "otherizing" of people based on their physical appearance and/or background, consciously or subconsciously. The line between ethnicity and race is blurry at best. Like most forms of bigotry, I think it's only relevant to socialism when it's used to prop up an economic order that depends on such social divisions to function.

I'd argue that all modern racism (but not all bigotry) is based on propping up the economic order. For the Spanish in the Americas, they used the "heathenism" of the native religious views as their justification for killing or enslaving Africans and Americans. But in the more modern capitalist era where "all men are created equal" the ruling classes needed to find reasons for why maybe some men were created a little more equal and others a little less. So since we have "freedom of religion" enslavement of blacks was justified by claiming that they were just biologically and mentally feeble and that they could not function in modern society without being slaves. Now racism is used to explain away why in "a colorblind society" there are racial inequalities... it's not the system, it's the "inferior African American culture" that's the problem according to this logic.

I think for there to be a coherent definition of racism, the systemic element is central because you can be a bigot or "other" goths or emo-kids or people with red hair or people with bad teeth or yuppies (as I am often guilty) but there is no such thing as emo-racism or antiyuppieism.

[balaclava]

I'd argue that all modern racism . .

What is ‘modern’ racism? Is there a ‘classic’ or ‘traditional’ racism and a ‘modern’ racism? What’s the difference?

[balaclava]

I think it's a slippery slope. I mean, if you start saying it's okay to racially discriminate against people who racially discriminate...well, that's all tit-for-tat. ...

Indeed but my question specifically asks about discriminating against a culture rather than a race. An Afrikaner can’t help being an Afrikaner and he/she can’t change their race but he/she can choose not to adhere to cultural norms that include apartheid. Would I be labelled racist (by the RevLeft) if I placed a poster in my window that stated that I don’t want neighbours who belong to a group whose cultural norms include apartheid?

[hatzel]

Indeed but my question specifically asks about discriminating against a culture rather than a race. An Afrikaner can’t help being an Afrikaner and he/she can’t change their race but he/she can choose not to adhere to cultural norms that include apartheid. Would I be labelled racist (by the RevLeft) if I placed a poster in my window that stated that I don’t want neighbours who belong to a group whose cultural norms include apartheid?

Which would be what I was getting at with:


...so unless the Afrikaner in question holds whatever belief, does this or that, then it's definitely racism to discriminate against them. That's not saying it's automatically acceptable to discriminate against somebody in whatever way one pleases merely because one doesn't agree with their opinions, but that's a whole other debate...

Presumably adherence to apartheid ideas would be included in 'whatever belief'. The issue I was getting at was if somebody says 'this person is an Afrikaner, therefore they are a racist, therefore I dislike them', then that's clearly racism. If somebody says 'this person is an Afrikaner, and in addition they have shown themselves to be personally racist, therefore I don't like them', then this can't be portrayed as racist, as far as I'm concerned. Considering cultural norms, in this case, are clearly social norms, rather than some real cultural or religious basis...in my opinion...a different example I might consider differently, though...

[ComradeMan]

Which would be what I was getting at with:



Presumably adherence to apartheid ideas would be included in 'whatever belief'. The issue I was getting at was if somebody says 'this person is an Afrikaner, therefore they are a racist, therefore I dislike them', then that's clearly racism. If somebody says 'this person is an Afrikaner, and in addition they have shown themselves to be personally racist, therefore I don't like them', then this can't be portrayed as racist, as far as I'm concerned. Considering cultural norms, in this case, are clearly social norms, rather than some real cultural or religious basis...in my opinion...a different example I might consider differently, though...

How do you discriminate against a discriminator?

But I still don't think matching stupidity with stupidity is the way.

Imagine some really nasty rightwing, Jewish person was being racist about Arabs? Would it be okay for me to say "Fuck off Yid"?

No, it wouldn't. I'd probably say fuck off you prick!

If you lower yourself to the standards of those you despise (rightly) then you actually let them win.

[#FF0000]

I agree . . . I like the one human being inferior bit. I think the Auschwitz thing is a bit of stretch but I am starting to understand the love affair between the left and the Nazi’s.

Oh, tell us all about this. I'm sure it'll be hilarious.


And, I am forming the view that the collective here agrees that there is not universally accepted definition of race.

Yeah because race is an arbitrary thing.


Indeed but my question specifically asks about discriminating against a culture rather than a race. An Afrikaner can’t help being an Afrikaner and he/she can’t change their race but he/she can choose not to adhere to cultural norms that include apartheid. Would I be labelled racist (by the RevLeft) if I placed a poster in my window that stated that I don’t want neighbours who belong to a group whose cultural norms include apartheid?

This is stupid. Are you telling me that if you met an Afrikaner back when Apartheid was around, you would act as if he supported apartheid and was complicit in it? That's stupid and, yes, it is bigoted because you're assuming because the guy is Afrikaner that the guy is a bigot.

That's like calling someone a Nazi for being German or a terrorist or a sexist or whatever for being Middle Eastern or Muslim. It's wrong.


Interesting point - Is it possible to say anything negative about a ‘dominated’ group and not be labelled a racist?

Not really, no. I can't think of a situation where you could use a racial slur or say "Oh those people are all like this" and it would be received well.

Except for at an EDL meeting or something.

[ComradeMan]

That's like calling someone a Nazi for being German or a terrorist or a sexist or whatever for being Middle Eastern or Muslim. It's wrong..

Or calling some people "guidos" a racial slur against Italians or bringing Mussolini and Berlusconi into unrelated discussions....;)

[Rafiq]

So Arab's can't be racist? What's a "hoobshi" then?

The slave trade wasn't racial? Well, then the European slave trade wasn't racial either...

Come off it!

Nevertheless, I know where Balaclava is going with this, and I think we've done that thread to be honest....

Many Arabs are racist, but 'Arab culture' isn't racist at all.

The Arab slave trade WAS NOT racial. The European one, targetted blacks, the Arab one, targetted anyone, including the whitest of the white Europeans, Arabs, and Blacks.

The slave trade was brutal, horrifying, but never racist.

[NKVD]

Many Arabs are racist, but 'Arab culture' isn't racist at all.

The Arab slave trade WAS NOT racial. The European one, targetted blacks, the Arab one, targetted anyone, including the whitest of the white Europeans, Arabs, and Blacks.

The slave trade was brutal, horrifying, but never racist.

There was the additional benefit that because it wasn't racist, there was the occasional possibility for slaves to move out of slavery.

[Rafiq]

When you enslave someone means that person was considered an inferior person in relation to whom enslaves.
So this is a kind of discrimination, but that is not related to race.

And not just the Islamists who are discriminating, Europeans and even indigenous peoples practiced slavery.

... I never said they weren't discriminating.

They enslaved anyone who couldn't protect themselve from slavery.

[ComradeMan]

... I never said they weren't discriminating.

They enslaved anyone who couldn't protect themselve from slavery.

Were Muslims not forbidden to enslave other Muslims? Or something- if so then at the time it was a form of religious-racism? If not- okay, it was just fucking shit because they were attacking people in a weaker position, indirect racism if you like.

To be fair, slavery has existed in practically all non- hunter-gatherer societies since time immemorial. To be honest people in general have been fairly shitty.

I heard the Maoris ethnically cleansed an indigenous population to the south of New Zealand shortly before the British arrived or something...

[Jimmie Higgins]

What is ‘modern’ racism? Is there a ‘classic’ or ‘traditional’ racism and a ‘modern’ racism? What’s the difference?Modern racism is different than in the past because our conception of race is a relatively new and fluid development. In feudalism a lot of different groups had different levels of "rights" based on case and position in society. In modern society where there is at least the potential for class mobility, systemic oppression can not be accomplished through "caste" and so it is often (particularly in the US or other places where European feudal castes were never really in existence) done through ideas of this or that race or culture being inferior and therefore inherently not capable of living at the same level as others in society or just not worthy enough to have full rights. In feudalism, there was a realization that society was unequal, but that's the way god set it up, so it wasn't some inherent flaw in X people themselves that caused their inferior status, it was though that that's just the way it had to be.

Antisemitism is a good example of how opression has changed since feudalism. In feudalism there was rampant jewish oppression, but it was based on a religious and caste-oppression. In fact in many places jews, despite having to live outside of the main society, did not have to follow all the laws and regulations as Christians or some other groups. As feudalism wore on and capitalist modes of production began to take more of a hold, upwardly mobile Jews could convert to Christianity and then no longer face anti-Jewish social bias. But in the modern age, modern antisemitism began to develop which is much different because it identifies something inherent in Jews as the reason that they should be oppressed. Antisemites don't care if someone of a jewish family is nonpracticing or a christian convert, the jewish "race" and "blood" is inferior and must be irradiated or segregated according to modern racism/antisemitism.

[balaclava]

Interesting point - Is it possible to say anything negative about a ‘dominated’ group and not be labelled a racist?


Not really, no.

Amazing!!

[hatzel]

I heard the Maoris ethnically cleansed an indigenous population to the south of New Zealand shortly before the British arrived or something...

Source? I mean...I've never heard of anybody other than the Maori getting to New Zealand before the Europeans, and even that was only by a few centuries...or do we mean in this case that it would be Maori-on-Maori stuff? As in, different groups of what would now be called Maori? :confused:

[#FF0000]

Or calling some people "guidos" a racial slur against Italians or bringing Mussolini and Berlusconi into unrelated discussions....;)

I didn't bring Mussolini into it because you were Italian. :lol: Maybe Oswald Mosley would have been a better example to bring up.


Amazing!!

What?

[ComradeMan]

Source? I mean...I've never heard of anybody other than the Maori getting to New Zealand before the Europeans, and even that was only by a few centuries...or do we mean in this case that it would be Maori-on-Maori stuff? As in, different groups of what would now be called Maori? :confused:

http://www.moriori.co.nz/home/te-keke-tura-moriori-identity-trust/

Moriori are the indigenous people of the Chatham Islands (Rekohu in Moriori, Wharekauri in Māori), east of the New Zealand archipelago in the Pacific Ocean. These people lived by a code of non-violence and passive resistance, which led to their near-extinction at the hands of Māori invaders.

They appear to have been distantly related to the Maori.

Campbell, Matthew (2008). "The historical archaeology of New Zealand’s prehistory" (http://epress.anu.edu.au/terra_australis/ta29/pdf/ch21.pdf). In O'Connor, Sue; Clark, Geoffrey; Leach, Foss. Islands of Inquiry: Colonisation, seafaring and the archaeology of maritime landscapes (http://epress.anu.edu.au/terra_australis/ta29/pdf_instructions.html). Terra Australis. 29. Canberra: ANU E Press, Australian National University. ISBN (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 9781921313905 (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Special:BookSources/9781921313905). http://epress.anu.edu.au/terra_australis/ta29/pdf/ch21.pdf

^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-1) As Kerry Howe put it, 'Scholarship over the past 40 years has radically revised the model offered a century earlier by Smith: the Moriori as a pre-Polynesian people have gone (the term Moriori is now a technical term referring to those ancestral Maori who settled the Chatham Islands)' (Howe 2003:182).

[hatzel]

Was this before? I mean, I know it was all going off in the Musket Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket_Wars), and I'm sure they fell foul to that...wouldn't know about anything before...

Interestingly, though, would 'inter-iwi' discrimination in the Maori community be considered racism? I mean, would we consider the different iwi to constitute different races? I assume that if we would define anti-German Brits as racist, even if they're both white, then we could call inter-iwi discrimination racism, too. Even though we might consider them to constitute one united nation. Who will we give the important task of deciding which groups are the same race (for the purpose of brandishing people racist), and which are different?

[ComradeMan]

Was this before? I mean, I know it was all going off in the Musket Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket_Wars), and I'm sure they fell foul to that...wouldn't know about anything before...

Interestingly, though, would 'inter-iwi' discrimination in the Maori community be considered racism? I mean, would we consider the different iwi to constitute different races? I assume that if we would define anti-German Brits as racist, even if they're both white, then we could call inter-iwi discrimination racism, too. Even though we might consider them to constitute one united nation. Who will we give the important task of deciding which groups are the same race (for the purpose of brandishing people racist), and which are different?

Yeah, it was before.

I think there is some debate. Some feel that the Moriori were a prior race to the Maori, but the current thinking is they were a distant offshoot. But still, they had their own language and customs and were wiped out- for being pacifists it seems! :confused:

It does call into question some issues though. What about inter-ethnic conflict in Africa? Is that not racism?

In Israel- Yemen-Jewish versus Palestinian Arab? Could that be regarded as inter-ethnic or racist? Or what?

Or perhaps it's not worth really analysing too much because it's all just nasty.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It all depends on who is doing the criticizing and for what purpose. An Antisemite criticizing Israel's abuses of power is not the same as a Palestinian solidarity activist criticizing opression of people by Israel. The US criticizing a lack of democracy in Cuba because it wants to install another government over the heads of the population is not the same as some leftists who criticize a lack of working class democracy in Cuba and want to see full liberation and democracy for the people there.

But I don't understand how a "culture" as a whole can be criticized rather than particular cultural practices. If there is homophobia in US culture generally, is the problem "US culture" or "homophobia"? Culture is just an expression of deeper-rooted material things going on in society and that is why it changes often and is flexible. A "culture" with regressive or progressive features or practices is not that way because of something inherent in the "culture" it is that way for concrete reasons connected to the organization and development of society.

[balaclava]

My (humble) opinion . . . . . The problem is that at the end of the day some bureaucratic lawyer sat in an office somewhere has the job of defining what is and what is not racism. Since the day he/she put pen to paper in 1968 the Libertarian Left has been pushing and pushing to extend the definition and widen the net so that now it is unworkable. There is no clear definition of race and there is no clear definition of insult. Any group professing to be insulted by anything can cry racist and the Libertarian Left will bleed the legal aid system dry to pursue that individuals rights to feel insulted. I would argue that many of those groups are cultural groupings pursuing cultural practices which are the norm in another place but abnormal, often abhorrent and sometimes illegal when practiced amongst a group with different cultural norms. Of course it does not follow that because a group cultural practice is different that it is bad or wrong indeed some may be good or better and some may just be novel but anyone who points at any of the abhorrent cultural practices is labelled racist by the Libertarian Left. This ticking bomb has been lay hidden under the label of multiculturalism until Trevor Phillips exposed it. And for espousing that view the Libertarian Left jumped on him. Sarkozy and Angela Merkel are the latest to subscribe to that view.

So comrades, what do we think - am I allowed to question whether some cultural practices are bad and should be labelled as such or is that privilege only open to groups and individuals who are in box labelled by the Left as ‘minority’ ‘dominated’ ‘deprived’ ‘black/asian’?

[ComradeMan]

My (humble) opinion . . . . . The problem is that at the end of the day some bureaucratic lawyer sat in an office somewhere has the job of defining what is and what is not racism. Since the day he/she put pen to paper in 1968 the Libertarian Left has been pushing and pushing to extend the definition and widen the net so that now it is unworkable.?

Nice anecdote and all that, but where's your evidence for this? We can't have a discussion based on gut feelings etc.


There is no clear definition of race and there is no clear definition of insult. Any group professing to be insulted by anything can cry racist and the Libertarian Left will bleed the legal aid system dry to pursue that individuals rights to feel insulted.

I think that despite the lack of concrete definitions, very few really exist in this area either, then what you are saying may be true but then on the other hand people know when they have been genuinely insulted. I do agree that playing the race card happens and I think that is very harmful because then it becomes like the boy and the wolf, but still, that is no reason to have no mechanism of protection against bigotry and abuse within society.



would argue that many of those groups are cultural groupings pursuing cultural practices which are the norm in another place but abnormal, often abhorrent and sometimes illegal when practiced amongst a group with different cultural norms. Of course it does not follow that because a group cultural practice is different that it is bad or wrong indeed some may be good or better and some may just be novel but anyone who points at any of the abhorrent cultural practices is labelled racist by the Libertarian Left.

Who is this left of which you speak? I have respect for other cultures to a degree but I am not going to support female circumcision, for example, and if someone calls me a racist for that well then I think they're pretty idiotic. But on the other hand, what about your/our cultural practices that may be abhorrent to others? Ever think about that? We put elderly people in old age homes, or they die lonely without their families. In indigenous societies around the world that would be considered utterly barbaric and "uncivilised"- we are the ones, here I mean "modern" humankind, that have poisoned oceans, pushed species to the verge of extinction, destroyed habitats, massacred hundreds of millions of mostly innocent people, dropped H-bombs and if things don't go well in Cancun seem also to be intent on bringing the world to ecological ruin- What about that for a culture?



This ticking bomb has been lay hidden under the label of multiculturalism until Trevor Phillips exposed it. And for espousing that view the Libertarian Left jumped on him. Sarkozy and Angela Merkel are the latest to subscribe to that view.

Do you think that people here consider Sarkozy and Merkel to be leftists? :lol:


So comrades, what do we think - am I allowed to question whether some cultural practices are bad and should be labelled as such or is that privilege only open to groups and individuals who are in box labelled by the Left as ‘minority’ ‘dominated’ ‘deprived’ ‘black/asian’?

Of course you are if you are not using that as a means to attack a group.

I think cannibalism is not really a good practice, but I don't consider some Papuan tribes to be inferior because they practise/have practised this until recently and maybe still do. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't defend their rights to exist either.

These are difficult questions.

We eat horse meat here. British people seem to find that disgusting, but they had fox hunting for years... There are no clear answers but as long as you are not targetting a group of people with the excuse of something they do, but rather looking at the practice itself, then I don't see what the problem is and anyone who brands you a racist in this sense is just posturing.

[Revolution starts with U]

Heres the thing Bac...
If you say "yo cannibalism, not cool" not many will hate on you for that. But when you (maybe you, maybe not) come in like "then why are all NBA stars black?!" or "blacks are poor because of hip hop culture" or other such drivel... it becomes a problem.

[Rafiq]

Were Muslims not forbidden to enslave other Muslims? Or something- if so then at the time it was a form of religious-racism? If not- okay, it was just fucking shit because they were attacking people in a weaker position, indirect racism if you like.

To be fair, slavery has existed in practically all non- hunter-gatherer societies since time immemorial. To be honest people in general have been fairly shitty.

I heard the Maoris ethnically cleansed an indigenous population to the south of New Zealand shortly before the British arrived or something...

No you could enslave other muslims.. .Just like Capitalists today enslave people of their own religions...

They enslaved those who could not protect themselves, those who were attacked. It was illegal in many parts of the MIddle east during the time, but that didn't stop people.

It wasn't Racism, because how do you explain African Arabs enslaving whites from Europe? Or their own. They were pretty much colorblind when It came to slavery.

[balaclava]

Heres the thing Bac...
If you say "yo cannibalism, not cool" not many will hate on you for that. But when you (maybe you, maybe not) come in like "then why are all NBA stars black?!" or "blacks are poor because of hip hop culture" or other such drivel... it becomes a problem.

First off I don't know what the NBA is and I didn't know they were all black. Google tells me it's a basketball thing something I know nothing about other than a distant memory of my youth seeing the Harlem Globetrotters on TV doing impressive stuff with a basketball. If all the NBA stars are black, why would it be offensive to say that they are all black?

[Jimmie Higgins]

My (humble) opinion . . . . . The problem is that at the end of the day some bureaucratic lawyer sat in an office somewhere has the job of defining what is and what is not racism.No, people fought for it - no lawyer decreed that "nigger" is offensive to black people - "negro" wasn't even considered offensive and was used by white lawyers. So what happened? The civil rights movement and people stepping out from the shaddows and demanding full rights and respect. Part of how that was acted out was that many people wanted to be able to define black culture in a positive light and so "black" and the "afro-american" and other terms came to be acceptable in place of "negro" and other terms felt to be derrogatory, not by lawyers, but by many many people.


Since the day he/she put pen to paper in 1968 the Libertarian Left has been pushing and pushing to extend the definition and widen the net so that now it is unworkable. There is no clear definition of race and there is no clear definition of insult.It seems like you want to argue that "political correctness has gone mad" - I don't agree with political correctness but for different reasons. "Racism" is not about insulting people in my book since you can insult a rich ofey or a cop or a NAZI as much as a poor rural person or someone from an oppressed minority. Again, that's why I think "racism" can not be simply a synonym for simple bigotry or prejudice - for a accurate definition, there has to be a connection to the form of society.


Any group professing to be insulted by anything can cry racist and the Libertarian Left will bleed the legal aid system dry to pursue that individuals rights to feel insulted. I would argue that many of those groups are cultural groupings pursuing cultural practices which are the norm in another place but abnormal, often abhorrent and sometimes illegal when practiced amongst a group with different cultural norms. Of course it does not follow that because a group cultural practice is different that it is bad or wrong indeed some may be good or better and some may just be novel but anyone who points at any of the abhorrent cultural practices is labelled racist by the Libertarian Left. This ticking bomb has been lay hidden under the label of multiculturalism until Trevor Phillips exposed it. And for espousing that view the Libertarian Left jumped on him. Sarkozy and Angela Merkel are the latest to subscribe to that view. So your problem is with "PC". Sarkozy and Merkel want to scapegoat different groups in society to distract attention from austerity and the attacks on the whole of the working class from business and the governmnet through cuts and austerity. It's the oldest trick in the political book: divide and rule. "Multiculturalism" is not a ticking time-bomb, trust me in the US there has been "multiculturalism" in effect since the Irish and German immigrants started coming in large numbers. Each wave of new people has caused the political and business class and xenophobes to declare that the new group is "too different" won't assimilate, won't have "loyalty" to the nation and will "drown" the dominant culture. Each time there has been an economic crisis in the US, suddenly and "spontaneously" there is an anti-immigrant hysteria... in reality it has largly been drummed up by the private press and politicians - in the past it was Hearst Newspapers declaring that hordes of Asians would destroy "our values" now we have Lou Dobbs and Fox News telling us that immigrants are destroying out schools and hospitals (and not the politicians who are cutting funding and eliminating health and education programs and opportunities).

So if "cultural" practices of other groups of people are really your biggest concern when European leaders are trying to make the European labor-force like the US one (no protections, high inequality, working longer harder for less), are forcing restructuring and austerity onto the populations... then I'm sorry friend but you are history's fool, don't fall for divide and rule.

[balaclava]

It wasn't Racism, because how do you explain African Arabs enslaving whites from Europe? Or their own. They were pretty much colorblind when It came to slavery.

Chapa / Shariati I know you don’t like me but I like you. Why – because I understand and appreciate your struggle and fight to rationalise what you know to be ‘right’ with what you have been taught that is ‘right’. At a point in time you’ll have to get off the fence and live in the real world or subscribe to fantasy land. My heart goes out to you. Peace.

[#FF0000]

My (humble) opinion . . . . . The problem is that at the end of the day some bureaucratic lawyer sat in an office somewhere has the job of defining what is and what
is not racism.

No, but okay continue.


Since the day he/she put pen to paper in 1968 the Libertarian Left has been pushing and pushing to extend the definition and widen the net so that now it is unworkable. There is no clear definition of race and there is no clear definition of insult.

I generally think that it's really, really easy to tell when someone is being racist or someone says something racist. There has never, ever been a clear definition of race, because race is a thing based on arbitrary characteristics that are just decided somehow. Just a hundred or two hundred years ago, the Irish weren't really considered white in the Northern US.


Any group professing to be insulted by anything can cry racist and the Libertarian Left will bleed the legal aid system dry to pursue that individuals rights to feel insulted.

I think sometimes, like with everything, there are people who point out racism where it really didn't play a factor, but dealing with this is far better than dealing with the alternative, which is people ignoring racism when it occurs.


I would argue that many of those groups are cultural groupings pursuing cultural practices which are the norm in another place but abnormal, often abhorrent and
sometimes illegal when practiced amongst a group with different cultural norms.

I sort of want an example.


Of course it does not follow that because a group cultural practice is different that it is bad or wrong indeed some may be good or better and some may just be novel but anyone who points at any of the abhorrent cultural practices is labelled racist by the Libertarian Left. This ticking bomb has been lay hidden under the label of multiculturalism until Trevor Phillips exposed it. And for espousing that view the Libertarian Left jumped on him. Sarkozy and Angela Merkel are the latest to subscribe to that view.


So comrades, what do we think - am I allowed to question whether some cultural practices are bad and should be labelled as such or is that privilege only open to groups and individuals who are in box labelled by the Left as ‘minority’ ‘dominated’ ‘deprived’ ‘black/asian’?


It isn't wrong to say that certain practices are wrong. What's wrong, and what exposes people like, say, Angela Merkel, Sarkozy, the EDL, and everybody on the planet who whines about "multiculturalism", is that they don't care about the practices. When people go on about headscarves, they aren't doing so because they're committed to the idea of feminine equality. It's because they associate the headscarf with a foreign culture. The practice is irrelevant. Whether or not something is "British" or "French" or "American" enough is what these sorts of people are worried about. And it's in their rhetoric, too. They worry that people don't "assimilate" as soon as they set foot in the country.

So, to recap, it is a-okay to say this.

It is wrong to blow people up.
It is wrong to mistreat women.
It is wrong to deal drugs.
It is wrong to wear this or that article of clothing.

It is not okay to say this:

We have to do something about Mexicans because they are dealing drugs/spreading disease.
We need to keep an eye on Muslims because they mistreat women and blow people up.

It's not hard and most people, regardless of political persuasion, generally don't have a problem with telling the difference. Unless, of course, they are bigots.

[#FF0000]

Man I just don't understand how anyone who has even glanced at a history book in their lives can look at the nonsense going on over immigrants and say "Yeah, I'm sure it's different and warranted this time".

[Rafiq]

Chapa / Shariati I know you don’t like me but I like you. Why – because I understand and appreciate your struggle and fight to rationalise what you know to be ‘right’ with what you have been taught that is ‘right’. At a point in time you’ll have to get off the fence and live in the real world or subscribe to fantasy land. My heart goes out to you. Peace.

Balaclava I have already"Jumped" the fence. I'm not a Muslim, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to refute bs lies on the forum, regarding anything.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Man I just don't understand how anyone who has even glanced at a history book in their lives can look at the nonsense going on over immigrants and say "Yeah, I'm sure it's different and warranted this time".Yeah in 1890, papers the LA Times and SF Examiner were warning of the imminent threat of overpopulation (in 1890) if Asian immigration was not halted... they forgot to mention that much of that population was forcibly kidnapped and brought here for labor.

[#FF0000]

Yeah in 1890, papers the LA Times and SF Examiner were warning of the imminent threat of overpopulation (in 1890) if Asian immigration was not halted... they forgot to mention that much of that population was forcibly kidnapped and brought here for labor.

And don't forget the Irish hordes who were practically invading and building their victory cathedrals all over New York City for their pedophile god-emperor.

[balaclava]

the nonsense going on over immigrants.


imminent threat of overpopulation (in 1890) if Asian immigration was not halted...


And don't forget the Irish hordes

Who said immigration was a bad thing, which post was that I must have missed it?

[#FF0000]

Who said immigration was a bad thing, which post was that I must have missed it?

That's one of the big issues that racists and bigots are up in arms over. It's an example.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Who said immigration was a bad thing, which post was that I must have missed it?In the US right now and most of Europe, it seems like immigrants (in the US, Arab and Mexican currently) are the biggest scapegoat. Best Mod was just following up with what I said about the heavy scapegoating of immigrants by the newspapers and politicians corresponding to economic crisis. It was a digression about scapegoating, not a reference to a particular thing said in the thread.

[ComradeMan]

In the US right now and most of Europe, it seems like immigrants (in the US, Arab and Mexican currently) are the biggest scapegoat. Best Mod was just following up with what I said about the heavy scapegoating of immigrants by the newspapers and politicians corresponding to economic crisis. It was a digression about scapegoating, not a reference to a particular thing said in the thread.

"Foreigners" have always been the "first" scapegoats since time immemorial.

But yeah, I agree.

[Revolution starts with U]

First off I don't know what the NBA is and I didn't know they were all black. Google tells me it's a basketball thing something I know nothing about other than a distant memory of my youth seeing the Harlem Globetrotters on TV doing impressive stuff with a basketball. If all the NBA stars are black, why would it be offensive to say that they are all black?

Actually, if you reread the post, I wasn't directly referencing you (I said "maybe you, maybe not"). The "you" I was referring to, was informal... you, as in anybody.

Either way, the whole of this post is nothing but a troll, for which I will not bite.