Wanted: facts to destroy racism (and sexism as well)

[xxxxxx666666]

Racism: a method to divide human begins into some social construct is disgusting and evil (in my opinion :mad:).

If one looks at history there has never been a racially homogenous nation. Even Japan has ethical minorities throughout its history and Europe has always been divided between races.

Racists claim that all races uses force to keep themselves "pure".

After all, the argument goes, Africa for Africans and Asia for Asians, but we, the poor oppressed white race, must put up with the upcomming white genocide!!!! (or so I hear they claim)

But if they actually look around the world there ARE africans in say, Asia, look at Guangzhou for example, in China where Africans outnumber ethical Asians.

So Africans in Asia!!

Oh, does this disprove the "all races uses force to keep themselves "pure""?

Another thing that make me angry is the arguement that women aren't breeding as much as they used to and therefore our race is doomed to extinction! (or some similar fear tactic)

This makes me angry because women have rights(and if not they SHOULD :mad:), they are NOT breeding machines to propagate some ideas of race.

So what if they are not breeding as much as they used to?

What is the big deal with race and (insert your race here) pride anyway?

People live longer nowadays, to those who think that women wouldn't be able to get pregnant after some age guess what? There are records of women getting pregnet at age 54 and with modern technology perhaps even beyond that.

Women can save their ovaries, if they want with use of cryogenic technology, so the fear tactics of how women getting married later in life should stop.

I find this very offensive and disgusting, espically the argument that women who after a certain age can't get married.

Another argument I hear is "diversity is evil" and "diversity destroys" look at Rwanda, look at Darfur they say, it is the natural tendency of races to destroy one another. (despite the fact that according to their narrow definition of race, the two mention incidents are people of the same "race" destroying one another[Africans])


Well to those who believe diversity destroys, look at Brazil there are a mix of people living there of all races yes even Japanese, Whites, etc. and it is a fairly wealthy country.

Look at Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, and races there aren't destroying each other are they?

But races can be divided up, they say, there are traits of all racist and Whites are the most creative race in existence after all they point to the mummies of white folks in China as proof that it was Whites that build the Chinese empire. Caucasian build the Chinese empire!! But one can argue the reverse, after all have they heard about the Silk Road where people traded with the "East". Perhaps it was the Arabs who build civilization! And so on.

Anyway, please provide some more facts (preferably with data) to disprove the "facts" that racist and sexist used to divide people so the workers of the world can unite without dividing themselves according to race and gender!

Thank you dear comrades!

[the debater]

Don't forget to check out Refutations of White Nationalist Arguments.

[Remus Bleys]

I don't know why you said "Even Japan." (I stopped reading there btw) Its one of the most racist cultures there is.

But oh god... the liberalism in this thread... i cant take it

[the debater]

This is not necessarily meant to be an argument against racism per se, but here's an interesting link that leads to a text written by none other than W.E.B. Dubois on the history of Egyptian civilization, and how it relates to Ethiopia:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/afr/dbn/dbn05.htm

I like this link because it paints a complex picture of what race/ethnicity the Egyptians were, rather than a simplistic one.

[Sea]

Africa for Africans and Asia for Asians
and America for...... nevermind.

[xxxxxx666666]

and America for...... nevermind.


According to *some* white supremacist America is for whites: because they drove out/killed all the Indians here, thus making Whites worthy of America, because Whites build America they say.

They would point out that despite all the *help* Indians received, Native American are still poor second class citizens (or maybe below that according to some, some really want to "finish the job" of diving them to extinction) that could only live on welfare (courtesy of the Whites), even after all these years they say.

Thus this proves that Native Americans are incapable and unworthy of America. (or so they say)

However, according to data on people on welfare in America, I've seen the majority of people on welfare are single white women with children, followed by hispanics, and blacks with other minorites making up the rest, perhaps including Indians: nothing against these people, this is according to data.

However, it must admited the number of blacks on welfare went up, unnumbering whites (interestingly, the number of Hispanics on welfare actually went down, so much for the notion that the Mexicans are going the overtake our welfare system isn't it?) during the recent years (gurr, still can't post links,well, I'm sure you could finds the statistics if you want them).

I've yet to see data that says the majority of Native Americans are on welfare, even though *some* white supremacist claim they are.

I do wonder where they get the idea that Native Ameicans could only survive on welfare from.


I don't know why you said "Even Japan." (I stopped reading there btw) Its one of the most racist cultures there is.

But oh god... the liberalism in this thread... i cant take it

Yes, there are Japanese who are racist, but my point was that even Japan has multiple ethnicities despite the offical stance during World War II, the efforts to hide the problems of minorities, and the claims of racist there are still people other than the *official* Japanese people. Hence, the notion that Japan is/was homogenous is false.

(On second thought, maybe I should've used another example, how about this: Even in England there are many different peoples, look at the IRA and their acts to gain independence from the English)

How is this liberalism by the way?

[Remus Bleys]

Yes, there are Japanese who are racist, but my point was that even Japan has multiple ethnicities despite the offical stance during World War II, the efforts to hide the problems of minorities, and the claims of racist there are still people other than the *official* Japanese people. Hence, the notion that Japan is/was homogenous is false. You seem to simply stop at sentiment. And sentiment is an important factor, but you ignore institutional racism. Thus, you see individuals, and not a whole society.
This is an example of a liberal worldview.


(On second thought, maybe I should've used another example, how about this: Even in England there are many different peoples, look at the IRA and their acts to gain independence from the English)Do you want me to support the IRA? And that example is honestly confusing...
This is a bunch of rambling tbh.


How is this liberalism by the way?
Debating racism.

[xxxxxx666666]

Well I simply wanted to say that homogenous nations are not the norm though I admit may I have been rambling.

And about the IRA, well, ALL organizations, even those consider terrorist, who promotes or try to improve the general welfare of others have my respect, though whether you support them or not is up to you. Though I must also admit that I don't really like nationalist sentiments, I think all workers of the world should unite regardless of whatever classification someone labled them as, be it by themselves or others.

Again, how is debating racism "liberalism", or perhaps I don't understand the term?

For me to be liberal is to be "favorable to progress or reform" and yes, I consider myself to be a liberal, among other things, though I may be missing something here.

Also about institutional racism, well to my knowledge, no modern country promotes it, again, to my knowledge it is only promoted by individuals though some are in the governments of countries. (Japan's official stance is that racism don't exist there, though the actions of *some* people proves otherwise)

Maybe I'm a bit more, should I say, ignorant on these subjects than I though I was, so please feel free to point me to some links, books, etc. where I may be more informed. :)

Or maybe I'm very, very ignorant, well, I may find out soon I hope. (I started this thread because of all the [insert some race here]-race supremacist and sexist material and "facts" that, for me at least, seems to be everywhere and I want some ways to counter it, so I admit I may not be well informed in the beginning)

[the debater]

According to *some* white supremacist America is for whites: because they drove out/killed all the Indians here, thus making Whites worthy of America, because Whites build America they say.

The white supremacists themselves will respond by saying how whites still did all the good things, like creating America's government, and ending slavery, and inventing all the technology and what not. I would highly recommend learning how to think like a white supremacist, if you haven't already done so. It's also important to point out that the entire white race does not deserve credit for the Industrial Revolution, plenty of whites were not necessarily involved with the IR, for example, Latin American whites.



However, according to data on people on welfare in America, I've seen the majority of people on welfare are single white women with children, followed by hispanics, and blacks with other minorities making up the rest, perhaps including Indians: nothing against these people, this is according to data.

Perhaps, but there is still the issue of over-representation as it pertains to who uses the most welfare. Native Americans may only make up a small percentage of welfare recipients, but that may be because their population numbers are small. If Group A makes up 10% of welfare recipients, but only 6% of a population, then Group A is still over-represented, even if they don't use up the most welfare. This is the argument you're going to run into when debating white supremacists, so again, make sure you learn how to think like them.

[Radio Spartacus]

Well I simply wanted to say that homogenous nations are not the norm though I admit may I have been rambling.

And about the IRA, well, ALL organizations, even those consider terrorist, who promotes or try to improve the general welfare of others have my respect, though whether you support them or not is up to you. Though I must also admit that I don't really like nationalist sentiments, I think all workers of the world should unite regardless of whatever classification someone labled them as, be it by themselves or others.

Again, how is debating racism "liberalism", or perhaps I don't understand the term?

For me to be liberal is to be "favorable to progress or reform" and yes, I consider myself to be a liberal, among other things, though I may be missing something here.

Also about institutional racism, well to my knowledge, no modern country promotes it, again, to my knowledge it is only promoted by individuals though some are in the governments of countries. (Japan's official stance is that racism don't exist there, though the actions of *some* people proves otherwise)

Maybe I'm a bit more, should I say, ignorant on these subjects than I though I was, so please feel free to point me to some links, books, etc. where I may be more informed. :)

Or maybe I'm very, very ignorant, well, I may find out soon I hope. (I started this thread because of all the [insert some race here]-race supremacist and sexist material and "facts" that, for me at least, seems to be everywhere and I want some ways to counter it, so I admit I may not be well informed in the beginning)


Are you familiar with the crack cocaine/powder cocaine laws in the United States? Prison statistics? Things like that represent institutional racism.

That Rwanda argument could be turned around and be part of a history of race as a social construct, explaining how the ruling class creates the idea of race and how different groups are different races at different times for political purposes.

You seem like you're really new to radical politics, and that's nothing to be ashamed of, but I think you're not being bold enough in your ideas here.

Personally, I don't see the point in arguing with a white supremacist. If you really want to practice for that debate, buy a punching bag

[Remus Bleys]

Well I simply wanted to say that homogenous nations are not the norm though I admit may I have been rambling.


And about the IRA, well, ALL organizations, even those consider terrorist, who promotes or try to improve the general welfare of others have my respect, though whether you support them or not is up to you. Though I must also admit that I don't really like nationalist sentiments, I think all workers of the world should unite regardless of whatever classification someone labled them as, be it by themselves or others.
What?

Again, how is debating racism "liberalism", or perhaps I don't understand the term? You seek to reform it, whilst assume everyone is rational. How is that not liberalism?


For me to be liberal is to be "favorable to progress or reform" and yes, I consider myself to be a liberal, among other things, though I may be missing something here.
You're on a revolutionary site and you favor reforms.

WAIT, The Khruschevite is a liberal???
What?!?

Also about institutional racism, well to my knowledge, no modern country promotes it, again, to my knowledge it is only promoted by individuals though some are in the governments of countries.Then you should head on over to learning.
(Japan's official stance is that racism don't exist there, though the actions of *some* people proves otherwise)Quit talking about japan you weeaboo.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Well I simply wanted to say that homogenous nations are not the norm though I admit may I have been rambling.



They just don't exist in any true sense of the word. It is usually used by right-wing nuts who want to whine about "mass-immigration" in their own country - they then turn to China or Japan or wherever and say, look, homogeneity is peaceful tranquillity and social peace. Of course, it is just nonsense.


Again, how is debating racism "liberalism", or perhaps I don't understand the term?

For me to be liberal is to be "favorable to progress or reform" and yes, I consider myself to be a liberal, among other things, though I may be missing something here.

Because those things are not set by debate. Debate is nothing but a pointless exercise. Boring intellectual gymnastics. Debates have never succeed in convincing anyone of anything in the absence of other factors. To ascribe powers to change people's mind by debate alone is in addition to being daft and naïve liberalism. Liberals are stewards of the racist state and capitalism.


Also about institutional racism, well to my knowledge, no modern country promotes it, again, to my knowledge it is only promoted by individuals though some are in the governments of countries. (Japan's official stance is that racism don't exist there, though the actions of *some* people proves otherwise)

Institutional racism is not a question of official government policies, which tend not to be overtly racist (because admitting it is racism would be a silly thing to do), it is a question of overarching social trends and practical policies of state organs (disproportionately targeting certain groups for crimes committed equally by all groups, i.e. drug use, would be a good example).

There is no point in arguing with white nationalists. We are not interested in popular conversion, we are interested in real social change. Fleeting opinions are irrelevant; they are wrong and we are right.

[xxxxxx666666]

Ok, I've taken your advice, Remus Bley, and have started a thread in the learning section called" A continuation of "Wanted: facts to destroy racism (and sexism as well)"

Apologies to everyone for starting this thread in the wrong place.

(And just maybe I should've used India or Pakistan as an example, instead of Japan, given the reaction, after all Pakistan and India *officially* has a homogenous population thanks the genocide that happened thanks to the split after the British left that divided the formerly single "country" into India and Pakistan, oh well....)

Anyway I've started a new thread in the learning section so feel free to take your ideas, comments, etc. there. (Too bad I can't move this entire thread there:crying:)