Can a minority hold racist feelings ?

[Urban Rubble]

On this board there seems to be a rather unique and bizzarre opinion that a minority (blacks, asians, latinos) cannot be racist. I've been told that if a white man beats up a black man it's racism, if a balck man beats up a white man it's simply misplaced anger.

Now, I have been debating this with cubist and RedZeppelin and I want to address some of their points. At the bottom I will also ask some questions for them, and for everyone else.

cubist

Why is it that when a black man exhibits signs of racism it's justified as "he's just lashing out because of his experiences with white people". But when a white man is racist you won't try and justify that way (and rightfully so). My friend Kyle grew up in Spanish Harlem (he's white). He spent his whole life getting jumped and spit on by Dominicans, Blacks, Cubans and all other people of color. His baby sister was killed in a driveby where a white store clerk was the target. His mother was mugged and beaten (while being called "white *****" among other things) not once, but twice in the 15 years they lived there. Did Kyle grow up to be a racist pig who thought all minorities were violent thugs ? No, he realized that there were special circumstances. He realized that these people weren't the way they were because of their dark skin. Oppression is not a justification for hatred based on skin color.

Racism is racism, regardless of why the person is that way. I realize that when you have been oppressed by a certain race your whole life you tend to be distrustful of said race. But no matter what you've been through, if you are too ignorant to realize that skin color is not a justified reason for hatred you are a fool and you deserve all the scorn you get.

Victor

In that thread you said that someone has to contribute to oppression to be considered a racist, correct ? I think that if you believe your race is superior and that another race is inferior you are a racist, regardless of if you've acted on it or not.

I then laid out a situation of a man who has racist feelings and thoughts, but has never acted on them. You then said that his racist thoughts contribute to a ruling class agenda. I would like to know how. How does a man's thoughts (that he does not express in public or around anyone that isn't in his family) contribute to anyone's agenda ?

We all believe that hatred based on skin color is wrong, the fact that you condone this kind of hatred as long as the one doing it isn't white make me sick.

rac-ism

noun

The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

See ? Nothing in there are whether the person is a member of the "ruling" race or not. It is simply the belief that skin color makes a fucking difference. IT DOES NOT.

Everyone

If a black man feels that all Mexicans are evil, smelly little thieves and that all blacks are intelligent, humble people who would never hurt a fly, is he not a racist ?

If a middle class Latino kid who has never experienced any racism in his life believes that the white pigment in my skin means I am a bad person and he chooses to spit in my face because I'm white, is he not a racist ?

How about a Costa Rican living in Costa Rica where he has never been oppressed by white people ? He has no reason to hate based on skin color as whites have never oppressed him, if he decides that skin color is important enough to determine whether or not someone is a good person is he not a racist ?



This thought that these "poor little minorities" need to have everything they do wrong explained and justified by a few self loathing middle class white kids is beyond racist. It's insulting, arrogant and yes, it is very racist. You are the ones making such distinctions based on skin color. You are the ones that are saying what is O.K for someone with A. skin color is wrong for someone with B. skin color. Distinctions based a skin pigment are wrong, no matter if you're hating them for it or if you're trying to help them. If you make decisions based on someone's color you are a run of the mill RACIST.

[Intifada]

I agree with you UR completely.

[NeedToShower]

Malcolm X was a racist if I have understood the history correct. And he was a minority, obviously minorities can be racist.

Well, none can be naturally racist, but well, minorities can yes as well be fool enough to be racist, yes.
However I find it to be more natural and understandable that one minority that live in a discriminative society, under discrimination, will believe in race wars, as that’s exactly what that individual’s life has been all about, so that’s how he’ll reflect he’s personality toward society, whit a hate toward the other race, as he or she’ll be paranoid due to the large amount of racism he or she has received from the other racists in the vicinity, however this isn’t always the case in the minority’s racism, just a theory on some.

[RedAnarchist]

Of course they can. they are human beings. To say that no person of colour can be rascist is to say either that they are animals who do not have human qualities - albeit a negative one - such as rascism, or that they are perfect beings that cannot see the colour of someone's skin. However, white rascism has always been the most violent, the most evil and the most outspoken.

I myself have never encountered anti-white rascism, and i doubt that there is such a thing in most parts of the world.

[Urban Rubble]

However I find it to be more natural and understandable that one minority that live in a discriminative society, under discrimination, will believe in race wars,

Don't get me wrong. I understand what could make a peson that way, just as I understand what could make a white person be racist. Understanding doesn't mean you have to think it's O.K. Understanding does not mean you have to say it isn't racism when a minority hates based on race.


To say that no person of colour can be rascist is to say either that they are animals who do not have human qualities - albeit a negative one - such as rascism, or that they are perfect beings that cannot see the colour of someone's skin.

EXACTLY. I agree 100%. To hold the belief that minorities are incapable of racism is racist in iteself.


However, white rascism has always been the most violent, the most evil and the most outspoken.

Agreed.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Excellent post UrbanRubble.

NeedToShower

Yeah, good observation. However Malcom did change at the end of his life.

[Subversive Pessimist]

Can a minority hold racist feelings ?


Yes, of course.

[Hampton]

Malcolm X was a racist if I have understood the history correct. And he was a minority, obviously minorities can be racist.

When Malcolm was in the NOI he went around and spat that the white man was the devil right? Blond hair blue eyed devil. But what did that accomplish? Nothing. It attracted other people to the radical fringe that was the NOI, but what else did it do? The media called him crazy and portrayed him as a racist and a crazy man.

That was reffered to "black supremacy". Who he was being superior to is the question. The answer was no one. The NOI when calling whitey the devil was not superior to anyone.

At the same time of Malcolm you had a man called J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon conducting something called Cointelpro. The large percentage of that was directed at so called "Black Nationalist Hate Groups". While police were out murdering Fred Hampton and Bobby Hutton they were help with respect and admiration until Watergate and the Church Committee.

What power did Malcolm's rhetoric hold over Nixon? None. What power did Nixon's actions hold over Malcolm? His life.

I believe the words prejudice, discrimination, and racism get more blended into each other than they should be.

Prejudice, which is an attitude, a way of thinking, must be distinguished from discrimination, which necessarily involves action. Racism is discrimination by a group against another for the purposes of subjugation or maintaining subjugation. In other words one cannot be a racist unless he has the power to subjugate.

But how do you define what exactly power is? Is power the ability to take your life? Everyone person has the power to take someone elses life, that is not unique. Is power the ability to keep you in poverty and not able to get a job? That is a unique. Not everyone has that power.

[cubist]

rubble do you expect a racially abused person to just shrug there shoulders?

i am not syaing racism in anyside is acceptable but "tension" and "hostility" is some times to be expected, from abused minority's Edit and a lot bit more tolerance should be granted.

Again i notice you didn't use the bit where i was talking about a child who is racially abused like my girlfriend is going to grow up with an amount of hostility, the environment in which you grow does not matter what you think dictate how you look at things and if you grow up being called paki. and being chased through the streets by white men you are going to have a distorted view on white people. or can you honestly say if you had a sort of swatiska carved into your arm at the age of 8 and were called paki form age 4 and have never until getting out of birmingham enjoyed any peace you would have shrugged it all off and not hold a grudge?

and i know you hold grudges

[komon]

racisme or fascisme does not need color or race,it only needs you

[NeedToShower]

they are human beings. To say that no person of colour can be rascist is to say either that they are animals who do not have human qualities - albeit a negative one - such as rascism, or that they are perfect beings that cannot see the colour of someone's skin. Indeed, thus it advocates racism itself in sense of "color discrimination" toward the white species.


Understanding doesn't mean you have to think it's O.K. Understanding does not mean you have to say it isn't racism when a minority hates based on race.
What is the basic truth, but understanding means that it can be "cured," what is something I am very happy for. :)


Yeah, good observation. However Malcom did change at the end of his life. This is true. He already had to many enemies then to actually change much, this is a shame.


When Malcolm was in the NOI he went around and spat that the white man was the devil right? Blond hair blue eyed devil. But what did that accomplish? Nothing. It attracted other people to the radical fringe that was the NOI, but what else did it do? The media called him crazy and portrayed him as a racist and a crazy man.
And Martin Luther King, with Rosa Parks to guide him, and million other protestors, managed to change a whole lot. Why cant we start something like that today? I am sure that there is one among us verbally good enough for such.


I believe the words prejudice, discrimination, and racism get more blended into each other than they should be. What is the real difference? Just the same as "a" and "A", or "a" and "b"?
See, it's basically the same. It's all random hate, and it should all be hold against, being clear and open is what you need, not to be locked with hate toward someone for no reason, expecting that they'll attack you, and produce fear for such, thus produce violence. Peace and joy will never exist until these ideas have weakened to the slimmest.


Again i notice you didn't use the bit where i was talking about a child who is racially abused like my girlfriend is going to grow up with an amount of hostility, the environment in which you grow does not matter what you think dictate how you look at things and if you grow up being called paki. and being chased through the streets by white men you are going to have a distorted view on white people. or can you honestly say if you had a sort of swatiska carved into your arm at the age of 8 and were called paki form age 4 and have never until getting out of birmingham enjoyed any peace you would have shrugged it all off and not hold a grudge?Of Crouse overcoming such events isn’t easy, I speak from experience of being a rape victim, being smashed and hated, I know what I'm talking about and I AM the minority, I have never ever hated the white race. However this is about holding an open mind. But seeing as my horror started when I turned 10, I'll theorize about your example. It is obvious that she'll feel bad, but it is also just as obvious that, seeing as you know the problem, it'll be easy for you to prove that her grudge is wrong, it'll be easy to "force" her eyes open. Make her feel loved, it's not her fault that she have been greeted by a bad company.

Whenever this is the reason one hate someone, force their eye open, always force racists eyes open, that's the only way to win. In this case, the only way to do this is to make them feel accepted, by people who look like people who hated them.


racisme or fascisme does not need color or race,it only needs you Exactly! And that's exactly why it is a monster, why it should be feared, why you should be paranoid, and why the "you" in question should be excused! To a certain level, at least.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Hampton is right on


In that thread you said that someone has to contribute to oppression to be considered a racist, correct ? I think that if you believe your race is superior and that another race is inferior you are a racist, regardless of if you've acted on it or not.

I then laid out a situation of a man who has racist feelings and thoughts, but has never acted on them. You then said that his racist thoughts contribute to a ruling class agenda. I would like to know how. How does a man's thoughts (that he does not express in public or around anyone that isn't in his family) contribute to anyone's agenda ?

His racists thoughts did not directly contribute to a ruling class agenda, but he did subscribe to a racist agenda. He is not an active racist, but a racist nonetheless.

One who belongs to an oppressed race would be ineffective in accomplishing any oppression. Whereas a member of a racially dominant group can indeed contribute to the oppression by buying into the ruling class's racist agenda. For a black man to hate whites does not contribute to any ruling class agenda and is therefore not oppressive.

That isn't to say that it's not wrong. It's just not a contrivance of our real enemy: our class enemy. It's not what we need to focus on. We need to focus on the apparatus of the ruling class that's gonna stand in the way of socialism. This is not it.

[Urban Rubble]

cubist, this is the third post in a row where I have asked you to directly address my points. If you do not wish to debate and only wish to repeat yourself while dodging my questions then I kindly and respectfully ask you to fuck off and stop posting in the thread.


Prejudice, which is an attitude, a way of thinking, must be distinguished from discrimination, which necessarily involves action. Racism is discrimination by a group against another for the purposes of subjugation or maintaining subjugation. In other words one cannot be a racist unless he has the power to subjugate.

But the definition of racism is not discrimination based on race. That is part of it, but again: The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

My point is: believing that race accounts for differences in human behavior is racism. Whether or not you ever accomplish any oppression or discrimination, racism is simply the mindset you have.


His racists thoughts did not directly contribute to a ruling class agenda, but he did subscribe to a racist agenda. He is not an active racist, but a racist nonetheless.

So they didn't contribute to a ruling class agenda, just as I said. You have contradicted yourself.

And if you are going to claim that by "not directly" you meant that he still contributes, you are going to have to explain how thoughts that are never acted upon and rarely uttered contribute to anything. You have failed to do that so far and it's pretty important to your argument.


For a black man to hate whites does not contribute to any ruling class agenda and is therefore not oppressive.

Again, racism does not require active oppression. Racism by very definition is thoughts that are racially biased.


That isn't to say that it's not wrong.

But don't you see that you give that impression ? By justifying hatred based on skin color you make it hard to believe that you have a problem with it.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

So they didn't contribute to a ruling class agenda, just as I said. You have contradicted yourself.

And if you are going to claim that by "not directly" you meant that he still contributes, you are going to have to explain how thoughts that are never acted upon and rarely uttered contribute to anything. You have failed to do that so far and it's pretty important to your argument.

A rich guy who hates poor people but doesn't act upon it is still an elitist by any other name.


Again, racism does not require active oppression. Racism by very definition is thoughts that are racially biased.

There must be a more objective distinction between racism and discrimination. Racism is a ruling class tactic to disenfranchise an entire race.


But don't you see that you give that impression ? By justifying hatred based on skin color you make it hard to believe that you have a problem with it.

I don't justify hatred based on skin color.
I'm just saying that what some call "reverse-racism" is not a tool of oppression. It's not an enemy of equality because it only seeks to attack an oppressive group, not oppress an oppressed group. It's not a means of subjugation.

[redstar2000]

I'm in agreement with Hampton -- we really need ways to discuss this that reflect the complexity of the situation.

1. An individual who despises members of other "races" but who never acts on or even speaks about those views.

2. An individual who despises, etc., but who speaks those views only to other members of his own "race" that he thinks will be sympathetic.

3. An individual who despises, etc., and carrys that out by verbally abusing and/or physically attacking members of the despised "race".

4. An individual who despises, etc., and who has and uses his institutionalized power to attack some or many members of the despised "race"...up to the point of systematic murder.

5. Not to mention the oddest case of all -- the individual who may be entirely indifferent to "race" as such but who is nevertheless willing to carry out racist orders -- to participate in campaigns directed against a particular "race" -- for reasons other than his personal views about "race".

They're all racists...but some are quite a bit worse than others.

One thing that might help is if we all understood that "race" is a superstition -- like patriotism or religion. Scientists have junked the concept of "race" as biologically useless -- it's a social construct, not something that's "real" in the way that genes are real.

And like all other superstitions, "race" is another very important way that the oppressed and exploited are divided from one another and weakened in the face of their class enemy.

I think it is most important for us to first attack institutionalized racism -- it comes "from the top" and has by far the largest number of victims.

Personal racism is reprehensible...but secondary in the overall scheme of things.

At Che-Lives, those who seek to argue on behalf of a "coherent" racist ideology should get the boot...no matter which "race" they "think" is "truly superior".

We don't need that here.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Latifa]

Definintions!
1. Closet racist.
2. Conservative racist. ( i made that up )
3. Racist thug
4. Corporate racist ( worst, scariest one )
5. Retard =D

[Charly Bigpotatoes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 01:44 AM
Personal racism is reprehensible...but secondary in the overall scheme of things.


I think for minorities nothing is secondary to fighting the institutionalized racism that puts them below the working classes. How can a class war be a priority when even their supposed class bretheren are treated as superior?


In regards to the initial question. No I do not beleive an oppressed person can racially discriminate, something that the law thankfully recognizes in my country. Of course they can be prejudiced but racial discrimination can only come from those who have power. THe derrogatory terms directed at whites by blacks for instance do not carry the weight of a thousand years of slavery, segregation and cultural genocide.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 10:55 PM
For a black man to hate whites does not contribute to any ruling class agenda and is therefore not oppressive.
It contributes greatly. The idea is that a black man is in the minority and his hate (pre-judice) isolates him. If this man (and people of a similar mindset) could unite with all class conscious workers of the human race, he would be part of a collective against the ruling class, that would bring us one step closer to ending their dominance.


It's not what we need to focus on. We need to focus on the apparatus of the ruling class that's goanna stand in the way of socialism. This is not it.
This is definitely it. This is part of it. I will not give up on any section of the working class. You can never tell who will come to the aid of our struggle if given the chance and what ability they will bring. We must aspire to end all forms of bigotry; they all propagate a divisive mentality that hinders the working class. If we do not denounce all forms of bigotry equally, we are favoring select members of the working class. If we are simultaneously promoting equality, we look like hypocrites and there is no better way to alienate the proletariat than to act against your own standards..

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 20 2004, 06:05 PM
On this board there seems to be a rather unique and bizzarre opinion that a minority (blacks, asians, latinos) cannot be racist.
This thread is very misleading.

For a start the title question is "Can a minority hold rascist feelings." The answer is, yes of course the can hold feelings that are racist, but is it possible to apply those feelings into practice?


I've been told that if a white man beats up a black man it's racism,

If it's motivated by the fact the person is black, then it is a rascist attack, but white men beat up black men for other reasons too.


if a balck man beats up a white man it's simply misplaced anger.

If a black man beats up a white man because he is white, then it isn't as simple as you are making it out to be.

What you're doing is dismissing the history of black oppression. Not in a malicious way, and i'm not saying you're ignoring what has happened in the past, or that you somehow condone it. What i'm saying is that you have drawn a very simple conclusion without regarding history.

Semantically you can say that if a balck man attacks a white man because he's white, it's racism, but unfortuantly our human history, thought, feeling and action is far more complicated than semantics.

Black people have been oppressed throughout history in the most vile, disgusting, horrifically concieved way, and that has had a knock on effect throughout the centuries, right up until now. Black people are still oppressed by a political force which is controlled by white people, and used to perpetrate a white agenda.

It was not black people who created racism. It was white people! It wasn't black people who enslaved white people, and it wasn't black people who took the obvious difference between the two and created a political, social and cultural catastrophe. It was white people.

The concept of racism is a white mans invention. When a black man attacks a white man for racist motives, one has to ask yourself, are we suprised? If the white race had not done what it has done, and had embraced Africans as equals instead of inslaving them as worthless property, black people may not feel compelled to become "racist."

Racist attacks of any nature are disgusting, but you cannot deny that an attack on a black person for racist motives and the attack on a white man for racist motives are not the same, and you cannot criticise them as such. They are not comparable.

I can understand black attacks on white people, but white attacks on black people is a continuation of the contempt and oppression the white race has subjected black people to since we discovered that they existed.

[Osman Ghazi]

The concept of racism is a white mans invention.

.

Racism has always existed.

Wasn't Moses racist when he decided that the Canaanites needed to be slaughtered and driven from Israel?


have drawn a very simple conclusion without regarding history.


Now who is drawing simple conclusions about history?

[Anti-Capitalist1]

everyone can be whatever -ist they want to. Minorities can be racist, women can be sexist, jews can be fascist, it's all fair game.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 22 2004, 01:23 PM

The concept of racism is a white mans invention.

Racism has always existed.

Wasn't Moses racist when he decided that the Canaanites needed to be slaughtered and driven from Israel?
Yes of course you're right, but you make it sound like a competition.



have drawn a very simple conclusion without regarding history.


Now who is drawing simple conclusions about history?

I should have made it more clear what aspect of racism I was talking about. Of course racism as a general concept was not invented by white people.

[Charly Bigpotatoes]

Originally posted by Anti-[email protected] 22 2004, 01:43 PM
everyone can be whatever -ist they want to. Minorities can be racist, women can be sexist, jews can be fascist, it's all fair game.
Right, and maybe the disabled could start abusing able bodied people, maybe mice will start chasing cats around?

Your statement could be true were we living in times of racial harmony and equality, assuredley we are not and never have been.

[synthesis]

I can understand black attacks on white people, but white attacks on black people ...

Are you fucking serious?

You should really re-examine your terminology. You seem to have a lot of trouble distinguishing between "understanding" and "condoning."

We can UNDERSTAND why Palestinians, deprived of family and property by Israeli war atrocities, would blow themselves up on crowded buses. It has a real, material cause in oppression.

It doesn't make it any less disgusting of a crime. To murder or harm innocents for the crime of others who share some physical characteristic is completely incomprehensible and I can't fucking believe any of you would try to justify this.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 06:01 PM

I can understand black attacks on white people, but white attacks on black people ...

Are you fucking serious?
Yes.


You should really re-examine your terminology. You seem to have a lot of trouble distinguishing between "understanding" and "condoning."

Are you being sarcastic? I don't really understand what you're saying.

The two sentences were:

Racist attacks of any nature are disgusting, but you cannot deny that an attack on a black person for racist motives and the attack on a white man for racist motives are not the same, and you cannot criticise them as such. They are not comparable.

I can understand black attacks on white people, but white attacks on black people is a continuation of the contempt and oppression the white race has subjected black people to since we discovered that they existed.


We can UNDERSTAND why Palestinians, deprived of family and property by Israeli war atrocities, would blow themselves up on crowded buses. It has a real, material cause in oppression.

It doesn't make it any less disgusting of a crime. To murder or harm innocents for the crime of others who share some physical characteristic is completely incomprehensible and I can't fucking believe any of you would try to justify this.

You have completely misunderstood what I am saying and have put words into my post which aren't there.

[synthesis]

Racist attacks of any nature are disgusting, but you cannot deny that an attack on a black person for racist motives and the attack on a white man for racist motives are not the same, and you cannot criticise them as such. They are not comparable.

They are the same, regardless of what you claim others "can" or "cannot" do. Harming an innocent person for the crime of another who shares some characteristic with them is an absolute wrong.

The attacks are disgusting, and to even attempt to say that "welllll...one has a historical cause, the other doesn't" is moral relativism.

We can understand the causes, but the crimes themselves are equally "evil."

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 06:17 PM

Racist attacks of any nature are disgusting, but you cannot deny that an attack on a black person for racist motives and the attack on a white man for racist motives are not the same, and you cannot criticise them as such. They are not comparable.

They are the same, regardless of what you claim others "can" or "cannot" do. Harming an innocent person for the crime of another who shares some characteristic with them is an absolute wrong.

The attacks are disgusting, and to even attempt to say that "welllll...one has a historical cause, the other doesn't" is moral relativism.

We can understand the causes, but the crimes themselves are equally "evil."
What are you talking about?

[Urban Rubble]

They are the same, regardless of what you claim others "can" or "cannot" do. Harming an innocent person for the crime of another who shares some characteristic with them is an absolute wrong.

YES ! That is what is comes down to.

Sure, we can understand how a black kid in the ghetto who has been spit on becomes a racist, but that is a far fucking cry from accepting it, or, in Victor's case, saying it isn't racism at all.

I made a huge reply to the rest of this thread, but the computer ate it. So I'm basically done with this thread. I think the fundemental difference is "Does racism necessarily involve oppression?". I don't think it does, I think to be a racist all you have to do is believe in the superiority of one race over another. Victor, and several others, seem to think you have to actively participate in oppression. They believe that racist thoughts alone do not make you a racist, unless of course you are white. In that case, racist thoughts without action still make you racist.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Anarchist Tension+Nov 22 2004, 11:36 AM--> (Anarchist Tension @ Nov 22 2004, 11:36 AM)
[email protected] 22 2004, 06:17 PM

Racist attacks of any nature are disgusting, but you cannot deny that an attack on a black person for racist motives and the attack on a white man for racist motives are not the same, and you cannot criticise them as such. They are not comparable.

They are the same, regardless of what you claim others "can" or "cannot" do. Harming an innocent person for the crime of another who shares some characteristic with them is an absolute wrong.

The attacks are disgusting, and to even attempt to say that "welllll...one has a historical cause, the other doesn't" is moral relativism.

We can understand the causes, but the crimes themselves are equally "evil."
What are you talking about? [/b]
I made it as clear as it's ever going to get.

I won't take this any further, because I have respect for you, but rhetoric like that of yourself and others is the some of the worst that leftist apologetics can muster.

("Worst" is in terms of ethics, not the actual writing, just to avoid any misunderstandings.)

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Black racists like white racists generalise and support division of the population. We can't take doublestandard if we want to unite the working class.

[komon]

how far can you go
i understand the mean to debate but this is too much
i already made a point



http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?amp;showtopic=30633&view=findpost&p=473101


or racisme or fascisme does not need color or race,it only needs you

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 20 2004, 06:05 PM
This thought that these "poor little minorities" need to have everything they do wrong explained and justified by a few self loathing middle class white kids is beyond racist. It's insulting, arrogant and yes, it is very racist. You are the ones making such distinctions based on skin color. You are the ones that are saying what is O.K for someone with A. skin color is wrong for someone with B. skin color. Distinctions based a skin pigment are wrong, no matter if you're hating them for it or if you're trying to help them. If you make decisions based on someone's color you are a run of the mill RACIST.
I pretty much agree with you, Urban Rubble.

Any one can be a racist. It is kind of racist to think that because of someones race, a person cant be a racist.

[RedAnarchist]

Extreme Political Correctness = Positive Rascism.

There's nothing wrong with some political correctness, but if it goes too far it beacomes what it hates the most - rascism.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Nov 22 2004, 08:46 PM
Black racists like white racists generalise and support division of the population. We can't take doublestandard if we want to unite the working class.
That reminds me of the exact point I already made on this thread...

[Vinny Rafarino]

Redzepplin-



If you belong to a racially oppressed group, you cannot be a racial chauvinist.


There is no amount of words you can use to ever apply any logic to this statement.

Here are the facts:

"Racial chauvinism" is just a fancy-lad way of saying the word "racism"; we all know no one likes a fancy-lad.

Damn those coffee house philosophy nerds.

The word "racism" means the belief that certain groups of people possess common genetic traits that somehow make them "superior" to other "races".

The words "racial chauvinism" mean the belief that certain groups of people possess common genetic traits that somehow make them "superior" to other "races".

Therefore if you (meaning ANYONE) subscribe to the belief that other "races" possess common genetic traits that somehow make them superior to other races, you are a racist.

If you are a racist then you are a racial chauvinist as they are one in the same.

Nowhere ever does any definition of racism imply that in order to be considered a racist you have to belong to the group that claims to possess the genetic traits that make them "superior" to other "races".

Why was it never implied?

Because to do so would defy all logic and rationality, period.


Edit:


Does anyone here see something familiar about Komon's posts?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Define racism however you want, but the act of placing one's race in superiority to another cannot be achieved by racial remarks against white poeple.

Not that I would condone such attitudes, but they do not serve the agenda of creating racial hierarchy.

[komon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 09:37 PM
Define racism however you want, but the act of placing one's race in superiority to another cannot be achieved by racial remarks against white poeple.

Not that I would condone such attitudes, but they do not serve the agenda of creating racial hierarchy.
what do you mean by hierarchy and racial agenda?
or racial agenda in hierarchy?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 09:37 PM
Define racism however you want, but the act of placing one's race in superiority to another cannot be achieved by racial remarks against white poeple.

Not that I would condone such attitudes, but they do not serve the agenda of creating racial hierarchy.

Define racism however you want, but the act of placing one's race in superiority to another cannot be achieved by racial remarks against white poeple.


It seems to me that the only one "defining racism however they want" here is you.

Being a "racist" is not determined by action; it is determined by belief.

If you believe (regardless of how or even if your beliefs are physically manifested) that
cetain "races" have superior genetic traits over other "races" then you are a RACIST.

I'm sorry mate but your assertation is not logically sound and therefore must be rejected.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by DyerMaker+Nov 22 2004, 08:30 PM--> (DyerMaker @ Nov 22 2004, 08:30 PM)
Originally posted by Anarchist [email protected] 22 2004, 11:36 AM

[email protected] 22 2004, 06:17 PM

Racist attacks of any nature are disgusting, but you cannot deny that an attack on a black person for racist motives and the attack on a white man for racist motives are not the same, and you cannot criticise them as such. They are not comparable.

They are the same, regardless of what you claim others "can" or "cannot" do. Harming an innocent person for the crime of another who shares some characteristic with them is an absolute wrong.

The attacks are disgusting, and to even attempt to say that "welllll...one has a historical cause, the other doesn't" is moral relativism.

We can understand the causes, but the crimes themselves are equally "evil."
What are you talking about?
I made it as clear as it's ever going to get.

I won't take this any further, because I have respect for you, but rhetoric like that of yourself and others is the some of the worst that leftist apologetics can muster.

("Worst" is in terms of ethics, not the actual writing, just to avoid any misunderstandings.) [/b]
I'm sorry friend, but I have absolutly no idea what you're talking about. I assume your saying that my language somehow condones racist attacks on white people.

I do not support or condone black nationalism any more or less that that of white nationalism. They are both disgusting ideas with the same disgusting end.

But I refuse to apologise for acknowledging that there is a difference between white and black nationalism. Black nationalism is a product of white nationalism. It is a fact.

[komon]

Edit:


Does anyone here see something familiar about Komon's posts?

do you do that often?and who are you?
a sort of anarchist or a sort of editor

edit



but this edit does not have anything to do with racism or fascime.does it?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

If you believe (regardless of how or even if your beliefs are physically manifested) that cetain "races" have superior genetic traits over other "races" then you are a RACIST.

Racism is not necessarily physically manifested, but can only be practiced by those who have the power to subjugate those being attacked.

But racial oppression, as practiced by the white power structure should not be regarded as the same as attacks upon whites by other racial minorities.
To be a white supremacist is oppressive to other races.
To be a black supremacist is not.
There is a difference.

To advocate black power in a a place such as America, for example, does not threaten racial equality, does it? You wouldn't call it racism, would you?

White power, however, is undeniably a racist movement.

It has to do with the fact that a racially oppressed group cannot subjugate a racially dominant group with racial discriminations.

[synthesis]

It has to do with the fact that a racially oppressed group cannot subjugate a racially dominant group with racial discriminations.

Look at Rwanda, their entire history is based around the balance teetering back and forth.

Race politics are fucking shit, period.

[Urban Rubble]

I do not support or condone black nationalism any more or less that that of white nationalism. They are both disgusting ideas with the same disgusting end.

I haven't seen you say it as much as Victor, but both of your tones suggest you do in fact condone it. Yes, you both make it a point to say you don't condone it. But you also say it isn't racism. I've seen Victor say time and time again that it is wrong to fight it because it isn't in the way of uniting the working class. No, not condoning it. You're just implying that people are somehow wrong for "daring" to call it racism when it comes from someone who isn't white.


But I refuse to apologise for acknowledging that there is a difference between white and black nationalism.

I acknowledge that there is a difference, I also acknowledge that it's still racism regardless of who it is.





But racial oppression, as practiced by the white power structure should not be regarded as the same as attacks upon whites by other racial minorities.

When did anyone say it was the same ? Why are you debating something that nobody has even claimed ?

We aren't saying it's the same or that it's just as bad or that it's a burden on the white man. I am simply saying that it's still racism.

Can you admit that racist thoughts qualify a person of racism ? Or are you going to continue to argue with Dictionary ? Again Victor, the belief, the BELIEF, that ones race is superior or another's is inferior is all it takes to be a racist. The fact that you think racial hatred when practiced by minorities isn't a road block in the way of working class unity then, quite frankly, you're retarted. I don't think you're retarted Victor, you're a smart kid, you're being stubborn. ;)

[cubist]

Why is it that when a black man exhibits signs of racism it's justified as "he's just lashing out because of his experiences with white people". But when a white man is racist you won't try and justify that way (and rightfully so). My friend Kyle grew up in Spanish Harlem (he's white). He spent his whole life getting jumped and spit on by Dominicans, Blacks, Cubans and all other people of color. His baby sister was killed in a driveby where a white store clerk was the target. His mother was mugged and beaten (while being called "white *****" among other things) not once, but twice in the 15 years they lived there. Did Kyle grow up to be a racist pig who thought all minorities were violent thugs ? No, he realized that there were special circumstances. He realized that these people weren't the way they were because of their dark skin. Oppression is not a justification for hatred based on skin color.

no its not that rubble whilst i see your point and to an extent agree, expecting people that have been subject to racism, to just shrug there grudges and say "hey thanks nice white man, " i can say easily that racism is wrong and i don't despise any race, but, for me to say i would be the same when i have grown up on the recieving side of racism, i would be lying, its very hard to just love people who have systematically abused you in your most important stages of your life. whilst it may not be right to hate them and attempt to cause pain to others,


Racism is racism, regardless of why the person is that way. I realize that when you have been oppressed by a certain race your whole life you tend to be distrustful of said race. But no matter what you've been through, if you are too ignorant to realize that skin color is not a justified reason for hatred you are a fool and you deserve all the scorn you get.


yes, your right its not justified but does that mean we should not be a little tolerant of that person to see if its real hatred/ or just a bit of hostility which when friendship is made is dropped.

and you still haven't said wether you could hold your opinion if being subject to systematic racist abuse as a child growing up? do you believe you could hold your head as high as you do?


But I refuse to apologise for acknowledging that there is a difference between white and black nationalism. Black nationalism is a product of white nationalism. It is a fact.


yes it is.

[Urban Rubble]

yes, your right its not justified but does that mean we should not be a little tolerant of that person to see if its real hatred/ or just a bit of hostility which when friendship is made is dropped.

If it's "just a little hostility", that's one thing. I have alot of friends that are hostile towards the white race, shit, I'm hostile towards the white race. Hostility is not racism. Belief that race accounts for the way people act is what racism is.


and you still haven't said wether you could hold your opinion if being subject to systematic racist abuse as a child growing up? do you believe you could hold your head as high as you do?

I didn't answer because it's a hypocthetical situation that has no relevance to what we are discussing. Could I ? Who is to say ? I'd like to believe that I would overcome that and use my brain, but who knows, perhaps I would be racist (though I doubt it because I was raised around racists and have rejected it since I was a small child). That proves nothing. I know many, many people who have grown up being racially discriminated (again, my girl of 3 years was raised in an all white town in rural Washington where racism is EVERYWHERE) but have managed to aviod becoming racists themselves.

[Urban Rubble]

Victor, this is from the other thread:


Define racism however you want, but the act of placing one's race in superiority to another cannot be achieved by racial remarks against white poeple.

For the last time Victor, pick up a dictionary. Try as you might, your opinion does not change the definition of a word. And we aren't just talking about racist remarks, we're talking about the simple thought that your race is somehow superior to another, or one race is inferior to another.

Racism is: The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

Oppression is part of it, but it all comes down to your mindset. If you think in terms of better or worse race you are a racist. I don't care who your ancestors were, how much or how little pigment your skin has or what country you are from.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Racism is not necessarily physically manifested, but can only be practiced by those who have the power to subjugate those being attacked.

Nonsense.

If a situation to "practise racism" presented itself to an "oppressed individual" in a manner that prevented him or her from being pinched for the crime, not only will that individual "take the opportunity" but they will do it while having a Coke and a smile.

It happens all the time.


But racial oppression, as practiced by the white power structure should not be regarded as the same as attacks upon whites by other racial minorities.

I hate to break this to you but this is irrelevant in this discussion. We are not talking about how racial oppression "should be" regarded, we are talking about you opinion that minorities are somehow exempt from being racists.


To be a white supremacist is oppressive to other races.
To be a black supremacist is not.
There is a difference.


Again, this is irrelevant to the discussion.


To advocate black power in a a place such as America, for example, does not threaten racial equality, does it? You wouldn't call it racism, would you?

Of course I would, as would ANYONE who understands what the word racism means.

You seem to be having a severe difficulty understanding that the ability to oppress or threaten racial equality has nothing to do with whether or not an indicidual is a racist.

Good grief, why do you think the Black Panther Party abandoned the "black power" movement?

Because it is RACIST and being so is not compatible with Marxism.


It has to do with the fact that a racially oppressed group cannot subjugate a racially dominant group with racial discriminations.

For the LAST TIME, this has NOTHING TO DO with the topic.

I will make it easy on you, every time you mention something that does not have anything to do with the topic from here on out, I will just ignore it.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

None of that is irrelevant to the discussion.

We're talking about what is racist, what constitutes as oppression, why, why not, and why some people cannot contribute to oppression.

Your ego just exceeded your argument, sorry. Maybe next time.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 09:37 PM
Define racism however you want, but the act of placing one's race in superiority to another cannot be achieved by racial remarks against white poeple.


Isnt judging someone based on their race and hating them simple enough?
Anyone can do that. Its racism.

[Latifa]

To be a white supremacist is oppressive to other races.
To be a black supremacist is not.
There is a difference.

Uh, what? To be a white supremist is to believe that white people are the best kind of people. To be a black supremist is to believe that black people are the best kind of people. Violence is possible in both scenarios.

To advocate black power in a a place such as America, for example, does not threaten racial equality, does it? You wouldn't call it racism, would you?

Actually I would. Black Power is the name of one of the largest drug-racketting gangs in NZ. They are all Maori and all very violent.

Black Equality, or just Racial Equality is a better way of putting it. I like that.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by 313C7 iVi4RX+Nov 22 2004, 09:13 AM--> (313C7 iVi4RX @ Nov 22 2004, 09:13 AM)
[email protected] 20 2004, 10:55 PM
For a black man to hate whites does not contribute to any ruling class agenda and is therefore not oppressive.
It contributes greatly. The idea is that a black man is in the minority and his hate (pre-judice) isolates him. If this man (and people of a similar mindset) could unite with all class conscious workers of the human race, he would be part of a collective against the ruling class, that would bring us one step closer to ending their dominance.


It's not what we need to focus on. We need to focus on the apparatus of the ruling class that's goanna stand in the way of socialism. This is not it.
This is definitely it. This is part of it. I will not give up on any section of the working class. You can never tell who will come to the aid of our struggle if given the chance and what ability they will bring. We must aspire to end all forms of bigotry; they all propagate a divisive mentality that hinders the working class. If we do not denounce all forms of bigotry equally, we are favoring select members of the working class. If we are simultaneously promoting equality, we look like hypocrites and there is no better way to alienate the proletariat than to act against your own standards.. [/b]
Hey RZ, are you going to respond to me? I know that this thread is moving fast but I would like you to address your statement on how some forms of bigotry arn't counterproductive to out movement.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

It contributes greatly. The idea is that a black man is in the minority and his hate (pre-judice) isolates him. If this man (and people of a similar mindset) could unite with all class conscious workers of the human race, he would be part of a collective against the ruling class, that would bring us one step closer to ending their dominance.

That would certainly be conducive to popular unification.
For whites to understand that minorities who show hostility against their race are not guilty of oppression would also be conducive to popular unification.


This is definitely it. This is part of it. I will not give up on any section of the working class. You can never tell who will come to the aid of our struggle if given the chance and what ability they will bring. We must aspire to end all forms of bigotry; they all propagate a divisive mentality that hinders the working class. If we do not denounce all forms of bigotry equally, we are favoring select members of the working class. If we are simultaneously promoting equality, we look like hypocrites and there is no better way to alienate the proletariat than to act against your own standards..

This not about "giving up" on anyone or favoring one group above the other.
This is just regarding the fact that oppressed blacks cannot possibly subjugate whites because of their race. It's not possible.

A person advocating the white power structure is condoning the subjugation of all other races by the whites. A person advocating black power is simply accomplishing prejudice. There's a difference.

We must deal fiercely with the powers in society that seek to subdue and oppress people. As I have shown, the empowerment of minority races does not and cannot subdue and oppress. By recognizing this fact we are not alienating the proletariat, we are only distinguishing what is and what is not a tool of oppression. What we're after, and what is an unfortunate, but inevitable effect of what we're after.

Hampton sent me a quote by Bell Hooks that's relevant to this topic.

"...it is [the] system that promotes domination and subjugation. The prejudicial feelings some blacks may express about whites are in no way linked to a system of domination the affords us any power to coercively control the lives and well-being of white folks. That needs to be understood" .

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 01:13 AM
None of that is irrelevant to the discussion.

We're talking about what is racist, what constitutes as oppression, why, why not, and why some people cannot contribute to oppression.

Your ego just exceeded your argument, sorry. Maybe next time.
:lol:

No one is buying it mate.

I can see that your confusion is not going to end any time soon. Good luck with your "theories".

[revolutionindia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 02:22 AM


or racisme or fascisme does not need color or race,it only needs you
The return of Comrade GAF :lol:

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 03:14 AM
For whites to understand that minorities who show hostility against their race are not guilty of oppression would also be conducive to popular unification.
Why? What does it matter what you call it? If these members or a minority are BIGOTS they are in turn provoking some due level of reasonable resistance.

BIGOTS will not care if any of the people they hate understand them. They will continue to be bigots for some undeterminable period of time and will squander any chance of unification.

Unless you denounce bigotry ENTIRELY, you will not reach bigots. They are ISOLATED.


This not about "giving up" on anyone or favoring one group above the other.

You might as well be giving up on them.


This is just regarding the fact that oppressed blacks cannot possibly subjugate whites because of their race. It's not possible.

True, they cannot subjugate by those same means but they are still bigots and still need to learn the truth about prejudices induced by the ruling classes.


A person advocating the white power structure is condoning the subjugation of all other races by the whites. A person advocating black power is simply accomplishing prejudice. There's a difference.

So what? By their prejudice they are accomplishing sectarianism and becoming great scapegoats for the ruling class.
Is this addressed to me anyway? Because I never disputed it, though they are also promoting black superiority (bigotry). You are making points in circles.


For a black man to hate whites does not contribute to any ruling class agenda and is therefore not oppressive.

Furthermore, you still have not addressed my point that this statement is completely false.


Hampton sent me a quote by Bell Hooks that's relevant to this topic.

"...it is [the] system that promotes domination and subjugation. The prejudicial feelings some blacks may express about whites are in no way linked to a system of domination the affords us any power to coercively control the lives and well-being of white folks. That needs to be understood" .

Yes, that would be a step in the right direction but more importantly, we need to do away with bigotry entirely.


We must deal fiercely with the powers in society that seek to subdue and oppress people. As I have shown, the empowerment of minority races does not and cannot subdue and oppress. By recognizing this fact we are not alienating the proletariat, we are only distinguishing what is and what is not a tool of oppression. What we're after, and what is an unfortunate, but inevitable effect of what we're after.

You have completely avoided my point. There is a difference between RECOGNIZING and NEGLECTING. You must also recognize bigotry in all forms and denounce it. Otherwise you are ALIENATING the proletariat and thereby helping the ruling class.

[El Brujo]

Anyone can be a racist but the concept of "reverse racism" as an institution is ridiculous (unless we count the Jews, of course). Both institutionalized racism and affirmative action are ways the powers that be dominate oppressed ethnic groups and prevent them from advancing through self-determination.

[synthesis]

For whites to understand that minorities who show hostility against their race are not guilty of oppression would also be conducive to popular unification.

Are divisive tactics directly oppressive? I think not, but they help perpetuate an oppressive system.

Is some poor, broke-ass white guy working at a gas station who's too ignorant and stupid to know how to tie his own shoes let alone understand that putting sugar in black people's gas tanks isn't helping his own economic situation, guilty of "oppression"?

No, he's just a racist idiot, like a lot of black racists, too. If anyone can't see that you can't ascribe the characteristics of a few people of a race to that whole category, then they should probably be shot for the good of the gene pool.

Political racism is usually justified by some sort of claim of economic deprivation caused by another race.

"The ancestors of that white guy over there* owned your ancestors and benefitted off their labor. Take it back."
*who may be Polish, Italian, Romanian, etc

"Them niggers is living off your tax dollars on they welfare. Take it back."

"Juden Raus!"

Race-politician opportunists want to tell poor people of any grouping that their current shitty situation is due in some way to the way ordinary people of some other race parasitically steal from them. The whole business diverts attention from the real cause of the conditions they live in.

Racists of all kinds - the neo-Nazis, the NOI, La Raza, Reagan's "code-word" racists - have been tricked. The real villains are the tricksters, the ones who really benefit off all this, but there are real people working within these groups to try to get the proletariat to align themselves with another cause than their class, and they are no less deserving of execution than the CEOs and the generals.

The whole of the human history of racial interactions does not matter to the black man who is being dragged to his death by a pick-up truck just for being black; it does not matter to the 8-year-old girl who is being knifed to death for being white.

In my mind, the fact that this matter is even being discussed, let alone the fact that this "racism of a lesser degree" theory is a popular sentiment among the left, is abhorrent.

[Individual]

Is an African-American a racist if he labels a Japanese-American a gook?

Is a Japanese-American a racist if he labels a Latino a spic?

Is a Latino a racist if he labels an African-American a nigger?

Is it a hate crime when an, using your everything goes word, oppressed Irish-American lynches an African-American?

By your standards we have ourselves a contradiction.

Because, by appearance, the Irishman has white skin (maybe just a pinch of tan, you never know) he must be racist.

Yet at the same time, because the Irishman is oppressed by the rest of us whiteys, it must not have been racism.

You flatter me with your logic RedZeppelin.

[Charly Bigpotatoes]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 23 2004, 12:29 AM
If a situation to "practise racism" presented itself to an "oppressed individual" in a manner that prevented him or her from being pinched for the crime, not only will that individual "take the opportunity" but they will do it while having a Coke and a smile.

It happens all the time.


Yeah, because they're all the same are'nt they!

So Comrade RAF beleives that all black people will jump at the chance to oppress others - nice generalization, and extemely racist. By the rules of this forum RAF should be restricted however I shan't hold my breath given the depth of ignorance on this subject here.

And how do you define the practise of racism? Is it calling someone a few names?
I think for Black people a few names are still the least of their worries. Even the misguided view of black extremists are not racist, their views of supremacy hold no weight, no history - they have never dominated any other race.

Caucasian people cannot experiance racism on a systemized, institutionalized level.

[Charly Bigpotatoes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 06:40 AM
Is an African-American a racist if he labels a Japanese-American a gook?

Is a Japanese-American a racist if he labels a Latino a spic?

Is a Latino a racist if he labels an African-American a nigger?


No, and I'd wager that these events rarely occur.

Racism is not about a few choice words.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I have ignored this thread thus far, however, I think it is important I reinforce a few points that may have been made already and ought to be common fucking sense:

1
Racism, and ability to enforce racialist ideology are not the same. Thus, inability to enforce racialist ideology as part of an oppressed segment of society does not exclude one from being racist. Racism refers to a set of ideas, not a set of practices and racist ideas can be held by anybody who sees themselves as part of an alienable "race", be it based on skin colour or any number of characteristics.

2
To hold that an individual, due to race, cannot hold racist beliefs is, ultimately, racist. Race is a social construct that exists within our society, and reflects, indeed, dominant, though similarly constructed, power structures. Being constructs, both ideas of race, and the power structures which influence them are not static. To hold that race has a role outside of this sphere of what we have created is nonsense, and represents essentialist notions, which are inherently at odds with the goal of subverting and destroying racism.


3
Opposition to the ideology and institutions of "white" society, and opposition to a privilaged "white" class is a different matter entirely from the racist notion of opposition to an alienable "race" with a lighter skin tone. The former represents the legitimate opposition to a class which has violently asserted its dominance and must be toppled, whereas the latter is undeniably racist. I would elaborate, but I have noticed it is 5am. FUCK.

[Charly Bigpotatoes]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 23 2004, 09:01 AM
Racism refers to a set of ideas, not a set of practices
I disagree, Racism is in fact the manifestation of ideas put into practice.

Which is why oppressed peoples cannot practice racism and racists cannot be punished for thoughts.

[revolutionindia]

Just a question

If one finds and considers whites(skin colour) more beautiful and attractive than brown or black (skin colour).Is he a racist ?

If it is then its sad because that qualifies probably 500 million indians for the tag of racist

[RedAnarchist]

RIndia, thats just a matter of superficial attraction. I would find a dark-skinned, raven-haired person much more attractive than a pale blondie, but that doesnt mean that i think white or blonde people are inferior.

[Charly Bigpotatoes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 11:56 AM
Just a question

If one finds and considers whites(skin colour) more beautiful and attractive than brown or black (skin colour).Is he a racist ?

If it is then its sad because that qualifies probably 500 million indians for the tag of racist
I think it's probably symptomatic of India's caste system and not a true reflection. It's an inbred reaction.

[cubist]

Belief that race accounts for the way people act is what racism is.

thank you, now where did i say that? please show me in my words where i said the race you are accounts for how you behave,

i said if you are subject to racism you may react differently, thats not the whole race.

you need to see that colour isn't always racist,

if a black man said i ought to knock you scrawny white ass out to you is he racist? he says it to his fellow black man it isn't racist so why when just changing the colour of your ass is it viewed as racism, if he was white you wouldn't over react would you

hes stating a fact your white and so is your ass

however if he said i oughta knowck your ass out becuase you are white, thats racism,

[Urban Rubble]

I disagree, Racism is in fact the manifestation of ideas put into practice.

You can disagree all you want. The fact remains that you are arguing with a dictionary definition, thus, you are wrong.


If one finds and considers whites(skin colour) more beautiful and attractive than brown or black (skin colour).Is he a racist ?

Of course not. I find asian women more attractive than black women. I find black women more attractive than white women. Does that mean I hate white people ? No, I'm just not as physically attracted to them.


thank you, now where did i say that? please show me in my words where i said the race you are accounts for how you behave,

I never said that you DID say that. I posted that because you, Victor and others seem to think that racism means ACTING on racist impulses. That is wrong, racism is simply THINKING in terms of inferior races.


if a black man said i ought to knock you scrawny white ass out to you is he racist? he says it to his fellow black man it isn't racist so why when just changing the colour of your ass is it viewed as racism, if he was white you wouldn't over react would you

Of course not. But would it be considered racism if I told him I was going to knock his black ass out ? Of course, regardless of if I meant it in a racist way or not.


however if he said i oughta knowck your ass out becuase you are white, thats racism,

I agree. But I thought black men couldn't be racist ? Only whites ?

So when I was jumped by black guys for the crime of being white, by myself, at night in the ghetto, were they racist ?

The asian man that told my girlfriend that she is disgracing her ancestors by being with me, was he racist ?

[cubist]

yes rubble thats prejudice

but your still wrong about the definition of racism.



I think it's probably symptomatic of India's caste system and not a true reflection. It's an inbred reaction

yes thats my point its a bred reaction that will require more tolerance to see thru it.
to the real person. it doesn't justify it but it can't be enforced by white people that will make it worse

[Urban Rubble]

but your still wrong about the definition of racism.

Well, the dictionary, encyclopedia, common sense and rationality claim otherwise.

Where are you getting your definition of racism from ? I realize that your opinion makes you want to re-define the word. But the fact is, opinions don't define words, actual definitions that have been agreed upon, accepted and recorded are all we have to go on.

[Individual]

No, and I'd wager that these events rarely occur.

You go ahead and make that wager of yours.

However, before wagering your life savings away on your petty whim, you might find travelling outside of your boonduck town with a population of 14 a worthy experience.

You would immediately find that in urban areas certain minority groups harbor extreme prejudice towards other minority groups unlike their own.

This is common knowledge. Many Hispanic cultures do not get along with African-American communities. Many Irish-American's hold prejudice against other European-American cultures as well as African-American cultures.

This is common knowledge in urban areas, knowledge you seem to have let slip your mind.


Racism is not about a few choice words.

Then you must have missed my scenario I threw in there figuring ignorance would continue to shine through... Is an oppressed Irish-American a racist if he lynches an African-American.

Just what then would qualify one as a racist? You seem to have high standards. :unsure:

Must a known white supremacist murder a minority in order to qualify him as a racist? Or should we just as well assume he is racist when screaming to a group of Asian-Americans the statement "You fucking gooks, burn in hell".

Again, outstanding logic some of you posses.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by 313C7 [email protected] 23 2004, 12:40 AM
Why? What does it matter what you call it? If these members or a minority are BIGOTS they are in turn provoking some due level of reasonable resistance.

BIGOTS will not care if any of the people they hate understand them. They will continue to be bigots for some undeterminable period of time and will squander any chance of unification.

Unless you denounce bigotry ENTIRELY, you will not reach bigots. They are ISOLATED.

You might as well be giving up on them.

True, they cannot subjugate by those same means but they are still bigots and still need to learn the truth about prejudices induced by the ruling classes.

So what? By their prejudice they are accomplishing sectarianism and becoming great scapegoats for the ruling class.
Is this addressed to me anyway? Because I never disputed it, though they are also promoting black superiority (bigotry). You are making points in circles.

Furthermore, you still have not addressed my point that this statement is completely false.

Yes, that would be a step in the right direction but more importantly, we need to do away with bigotry entirely.

You have completely avoided my point. There is a difference between RECOGNIZING and NEGLECTING. You must also recognize bigotry in all forms and denounce it. Otherwise you are ALIENATING the proletariat and thereby helping the ruling class.
A minority expressing "bigotry" cannot take away a white man's freedom. They cannot subjugate whites by means of racial attacks. Whites, however, have that power. Whites as a whole can subdue and oppress blacks by using racism. White individuals can contribute to this real bigotry and therefore perpetuate racial subjugation of minorities. Minorities cannot.

When white people come to realize that they're not being attacked by the minorities' prejudice, then it will no longer stand in the way of unification.

Besides, as long as the ruling class is in power and the white power structure exists, it is impossible to suppress the prejudice that some minorities hold against whites. Impossible. No matter how much we prioritize the extermination of it.

To attack our most oppressed class brothers who take no part in oppression would be counter revolutionary.

To fail to focus on the real tools of the bourgeoisie and instead obsess over your race being offended by inconsequential prejudice is counter revolutionary.

[Individual]

Come on RedZeppelin.. I'd love to hear your response..


Is an African-American a racist if he labels a Japanese-American a gook?

Is a Japanese-American a racist if he labels a Latino a spic?

Is a Latino a racist if he labels an African-American a nigger?

Is it a hate crime when an, using your everything goes word, oppressed Irish-American lynches an African-American?

By your standards we have ourselves a contradiction.

Because, by appearance, the Irishman has white skin (maybe just a pinch of tan, you never know) he must be racist.

Yet at the same time, because the Irishman is oppressed by the rest of us whiteys, it must not have been racism.

You flatter me with your logic RedZeppelin.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 03:55 PM
Is an African-American a racist if he labels a Japanese-American a gook?

Is a Japanese-American a racist if he labels a Latino a spic?

Is a Latino a racist if he labels an African-American a nigger?

Is it a hate crime when an, using your everything goes word, oppressed Irish-American lynches an African-American?

By your standards we have ourselves a contradiction.

Because, by appearance, the Irishman has white skin (maybe just a pinch of tan, you never know) he must be racist.

Yet at the same time, because the Irishman is oppressed by the rest of us whiteys, it must not have been racism.

You flatter me with your logic RedZeppelin.
Contrary to popular belief, racism isn't just an offensive remark.
It's the subjugation of one's race by the ruling class.

Is the African American contributing to the oppression of Japanese-Americans?
No, because as a racially disenfranchised individual, he is no place to subjugate the Japanese fella.

[DaCuBaN]

Race politics are fucking shit, period.

Right on.


Contrary to popular belief, racism isn't just an offensive remark.
It's the subjugation of one's race by the ruling class.

No: That's Capitalism!

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

No, it's not.
Capitalism is the subjugation of the working class by the acquisition of the means of production by the bourgeoisie.
Get it straight.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Of course not. I find asian women more attractive than black women. I find black women more attractive than white women. Does that mean I hate white people ? No, I'm just not as physically attracted to them.

I think this right here raises interesting questions - I think you find specific features attractive, which are biolgoical rather than "racial" (How does one define "black" in a racial context?).
I think we ought to start changing the way we understand and talk about race. Just thought it was worth noting.


A minority expressing "bigotry" cannot take away a white man's freedom. They cannot subjugate whites by means of racial attacks. Whites, however, have that power. Whites as a whole can subdue and oppress blacks by using racism.

1. I've never seen a wo/man supress another with racism - they typically use violence and other means of coercion, which are much more effective than a set of ideas.
You're butchering the meaning of the word - racism is not the ability to implement racialist ideology on a widescale. It is to this end that INDIVIDUALS - and not only classes - can be "racist".

2. Quit yr damn simplistic approach to understanding power! Does "multipolar" mean anything to you?

[DaCuBaN]

Forgive me, but...


Whites as a whole can subdue and oppress blacks by using racism.

...how does one go about using racism? ^_^

[cubist]

interesting VMC

my girlfriend is indian, i don't see it as i find indian women attractive i see it as she fulfilled my criteria (fit/funny/sensitive/nice/happy/controlled/ and happened to be indian,

Love is blind, love is is unconditional, colour doesn't matter,

hypothetically speaking :
if you lined a black girl and a white girl side byside who looked identical bar skin colour who would you go for?

surely no matter who you chose it would be a conscious prejudice over colour.

[Individual]

Contrary to popular belief, racism isn't just an offensive remark.
It's the subjugation of one's race by the ruling class.

Is the African American contributing to the oppression of Japanese-Americans?
No, because as a racially disenfranchised individual, he is no place to subjugate the Japanese fella.

Contrary to popular belief, your last name isn't Merriam-Webster.

I am not one to throw around definitions, but honestly here..

racism n -- 1: The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

racism n -- 1: the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races
2: discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race [syn: racialism, racial discrimination]

I am sorry RedZeppelin, maybe I should have clarified that racism isn't black and white.

Let us try other terms that may stike a different note in that mind of yours..

racial discrimination n : discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race [syn: racism, racialism]

racialism n : discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race [syn: racism, racial discrimination]

I saw nothing in their about the ruling class, or only whiteys are racist, did you? Hell, judging by the fact that :unsure:

Here is some food for thought..

Do you consider the terms gook, wet-back, and nigger discriminatory? It is a simple question.

Let me ask you this.. Just how much power do you believe a group called The Posse Comitatus really has?

Do you believe this posse of idiots is the ruling class over the people of this country? Do you believe this posse is the ruling class over anymore than the people within the damn group?

Hoping you still have a sparkle of intelligence left, you should gladly admit that this posse has absolutely no power whatsoever.

Now, realizing they have no power, thus cannot be part of the ruling class [/I](especially when denouncing the US federal government), I ask whether or not you believe them to be racist?

They have no power over anyone aside from the few idiots that willingly attend this [I]posse, how then can they be racist? By your views, because they hold no power and cannot oppress other groups, they therefore should not be racist.

I mean hell, they are being oppressed themselves by the US government having to unwillingly pay taxes, how then can they be racist?

Grab the readers digest, sit in the WC, and think about that one for a while. Let me give you a start, they are racist, and they aren't part of the ruling class.

I can keep pointing out your contradictions all night, so keep 'em coming.

[Hampton]

I am sorry RedZeppelin, maybe I should have clarified that racism isn't black and white.

Hence the reson why I find people looking for a dictionary to define what racism might, could, and is funny. Meaning that a dictionary could not completely define the complexity of the word.

Is there only one acceptable definition for the word?

Or this this one right also?:

Racism is an ideological, structural and historic stratification process by which the population of European descent, through its individual and institutional distress patterns, intentionally has been able to sustain, to its own best advantage, the dynamic mechanics of upward or downward mobility (of fluid status assignment) to the general disadvantage of the population designated as non-white (on a global scale), using skin color, gender, class, ethnicity or nonwestern nationality as the main indexical criteria used for enforcing differential resource allocation decisions that contribute to decisive changes in relative racial standing in ways most favoring the populations designated as 'white.'

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Charly Bigpotatoes+Nov 23 2004, 08:25 AM--> (Charly Bigpotatoes @ Nov 23 2004, 08:25 AM)
[email protected] 23 2004, 06:40 AM
Is an African-American a racist if he labels a Japanese-American a gook?

Is a Japanese-American a racist if he labels a Latino a spic?

Is a Latino a racist if he labels an African-American a nigger?


No, and I'd wager that these events rarely occur.

Racism is not about a few choice words. [/b]
Why would you wager that this happens so rarely. Sometimes African Americans alienate Haitians. Puerto Ricans alienate Mexicans, and vise versa.

Racism is about putting someone below you becuase of their race and thinking you have them all figured out because of their color. Anyone can do it, and it often reflects itself in words.

[komon]

i'm going to reapeat myself
rascisme is not a question of race and color ......it is up to you
the rest i think raisa did explain it better than i (behalve the race thing)change it to culture

[Individual]

Racism is an ideological, structural and historic stratification process by which the population of European descent, through its individual and institutional distress patterns, intentionally has been able to sustain, to its own best advantage, the dynamic mechanics of upward or downward mobility (of fluid status assignment) to the general disadvantage of the population designated as non-white (on a global scale), using skin color, gender, class, ethnicity or nonwestern nationality as the main indexical criteria used for enforcing differential resource allocation decisions that contribute to decisive changes in relative racial standing in ways most favoring the populations designated as 'white.'

Well gee, I don't know Hampton.

If I could understand an exact 100 word run-on sentence, I sure might be able to tell you. :huh:

Both you and RedZeppelin are caught in the idea that somehow whiteys govern the entire world. No matter our international diplomacy, there are numerous countries on this planet that are not run by caucasian populations, thus making other ethnicities the ruling class.

Inside of this no-brainer, are you going to deny that racism doesn't exist in these countries where whiteys aren't the ruling class?

Now don't think I am saying "ohh, whites are oppressed in other countries".. What I am trying to prove is that racism does not mean "whites discriminating and oppressing other ethnicities, and that is that"..

Think outside the box, the box that is one country.

Racism can exist protruding from any ethnicity, any culture.

The caucasian population of the world cannot be blamed for everything that has ever happened.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

We're talking about racism in the western world, and specificaly in America.
In America, whites are the only ones who can effectively subdue a member of another ethnicity on racial grounds.

[Urban Rubble]

Hampton:


Or this this one right also?:

Yes, your definition, as well as Victor's, are both racism. However, it isn't the ONLY form. Racism, plain and simple, is the belief that one race is superior while another is inferior. Do you agree or disagree ?

To Victor and all other's that hold this opinion: Do you feel the dictionary is wrong ? Can you show me some other words where the definition is just plain wrong ?

[Individual]

Ohh, I see now.

Now that you realized you were wrong the term racism only holds the "white ruling class" theory here in the US. Once outside our borders than it changes.

Well belittled to you, once again, this takes place within the US.

I've run into this problem with you before, something about dealing with different ethinicities in urban and rural areas. You had the same confusion back then.

I suggest you travel to a culturally mixed urban area. What Raisa has just brought up reminds me of a big one, Miami. Go there, you might save yourself further humiliation.

Minority groups dispute, degrade, and murder eachother within urban areas. Why?

Because they hold prejudice towards other cultural groups.

Why do they do this? Because they are racist.

Or do you have some other term, excuse, or illogical way to explain how whiteys somehow brainwashed these cultures into commiting this prejudice, thus linking it all back to whitey somehow or another?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Now that you realized you were wrong the term racism only holds the "white ruling class" theory here in the US. Once outside our borders than it changes.

Where have I shown to admit that I was wrong about the significance of racism?

For practical purposes, we're talking about western society, because we know fuck all about other societies. But I think both Hampton and myself said that racism is the subjugation of one race by the ruling class. Regardless of which races are involved.

Besides, you're the one who threw around Japanese-American, Latino, African-American, etc. as examples of minorities. I could only assume that we were talking about the United States.


Because they hold prejudice towards other cultural groups.

That's right!
Prejudice, not racism.

But the meaning of the words is really quite insignificant. What is relevant is the fact that no matter how hostile a member of an ethnic group is towards the race of his oppressors, he cannot be an oppressor himself. And there is a difference between racial subjugation and racial prejudice. Don't ignore that difference. That's what we're talking about.


To Victor and all other's that hold this opinion: Do you feel the dictionary is wrong ? Can you show me some other words where the definition is just plain wrong ?

Yes, I can.
Communism: A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

[Hampton]

Do you feel the dictionary is wrong ? Can you show me some other words where the definition is just plain wrong ?

The problem is not that it is wrong it is that you cannot describe the word in just one sentence (which is what a lot of people seem content with doing) and be done with it, holding it as the rule for how the word is used, what it describes, and what it is applied to. There can be many different interpretations to the word and by just posting one from a dictionary it is very misleading and unfair. And in doing so it is limiting the discussion to this box that some intellectual who wrote a dictionary seems fit. Real life and complexity of racism and its history cannot be squeezed into one sentence or one page.

And to an extent I agree with Victor. I'm not going to look in the dictionary for its definition on communism or socialism to tell me what they both are, just like I'm not going to look in a school history book to tell me who Malcolm X was.


I suggest you travel to a culturally mixed urban area. What Raisa has just brought up reminds me of a big one, Miami. Go there, you might save yourself further humiliation.

I'll be sure to call my travel agent, first class of course. Such a pompous little man you are.


Minority groups dispute, degrade, and murder each other within urban areas. Why?

Because they hold prejudice towards other cultural groups.

Why do they do this? Because they are racist.

How do they become like this? Is it the environment? Is it being poor? Living day to day? Growing up developing this attitude of survival of the fittest, knowing that if you do not go out and hustle everyday you are not going to eat. And that when someone threatens that, that you have to do something about it. Regardless of ethnicity.

But according to your definition "the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races" they must stab and shoot each other because the black man thinks that he is racially superior to the Latino. So when he stabs him he must do it in the name of furthering the black race and that every killing in the ghetto of two different races, it's ok to say it, everybody knows urban is a nice way to say ghetto, must be do to racism and not the fact that people have to eat and get money and that tension might somehow happen when different cultures are forced to co-exist in this type of environment.


Or do you have some other term, excuse, or illogical way to explain how whiteys somehow brainwashed these cultures into commiting this prejudice, thus linking it all back to whitey somehow or another?

What? I'm surprised whitey was not in gray. Well, let me explain what this fellow has really said. See what he puts words in italics it is implying that I said them. So in this case he is implying that I pretty much said "blame whitey". Which is an over simplification of the problem, but typical for him, he prefers the simple way of thinking things over. And when you wants you to think that I'm saying "blame whitey" it paints me as some sort of radical with one first in the air talking about "the man" and how he is "holding us down" if you can dig it jack. It's all bullshit, but then again so is who wrote it, so it is all relative.

Try to get one thing straight first: which word is it racist or prejudice. Following the never wrong dictionary prejudice is "An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts." Which is not the same as "The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others." The words are not interchangeable and they do not mean the same thing, something that you do not seem to want to acknowledge.

And if you really want to go into the history of this country bringing people over from other countries and the systematic process in which they dehumanized them, developing this inferiority complex which manifests itself in all types of different actions and behaviors, then you might want to read a history book first.

[Vinny Rafarino]

So Comrade RAF beleives that all black people will jump at the chance to oppress others - nice generalization, and extemely racist. By the rules of this forum RAF should be restricted however I shan't hold my breath given the depth of ignorance on this subject here.


Nice alter ego son.

By the way, no one is fooled.

Since you (like your other ego) are confused about the subject, I will point out that we are talking about racism and racist individuals; not the "average black man".

Do try and keep up sonny.


And how do you define the practise of racism? Is it calling someone a few names?

Try reviewing the two posts in this very thread where I define racism.


Caucasian people cannot experiance racism on a systemized, institutionalized level.

This statement completely defieds all logic and therefore must be rejected.

[Individual]

For practical purposes, we're talking about western society, because we know fuck all about other societies. But I think both Hampton and myself said that racism is the subjugation of one race by the ruling class. Regardless of which races are involved.

I understand the way of the discussion was concerning America. I went on to bring in other nations to emphasize the point that any culture can infact be racist. Something I had either rightfully interpreted for you to go on and change views, or something which I had misinterpreted and merely didn't catch myself.

Either way, hopefully you understand the concept that any race/culture can be racist towards another.


That's right!
Prejudice, not racism.

My context of prejudice was that of pre-judgment. A race holding a negative judgment towards another race, something which is the basis of racism.


But the meaning of the words is really quite insignificant. What is relevant is the fact that no matter how hostile a member of an ethnic group is towards the race of his oppressors, he cannot be an oppressor himself. And there is a difference between racial subjugation and racial prejudice. Don't ignore that difference. That's what we're talking about.

You immediately assume/imply that all of us whiteys are out to get minority groups. As if every caucasian in America is in the conspiracy to oppress minority groups. Get realistic here, this is similar to claiming that all Arab-Americans drive taxis.

I agree that there is racism involved in the oppression of minorities.

What I am trying to get you to admit is that racism can occur outside of being enforced by caucasians.

A minority group can practice racism towards another minority group. Again, do not make the assumption that I am implying all Latin-American individuals hold animosity towards the African-American community. Nor vice-versa. I am stating that it does exist.

Racism is not identical in interpretation to that of oppression. While racism may be practiced under oppression, they are not identical. One can be both oppressed and racist simultaneously, something that is taking place in large numbers as we speek.


The problem is not that it is wrong it is that you cannot describe the word in just one sentence (which is what a lot of people seem content with doing) and be done with it, holding it as the rule for how the word is used, what it describes, and what it is applied to.

Which is why I clearly identified -- I am not one to throw around definitions, but honestly here.. -- before I gave the dictionary definitions. If anyone understands the idea of individual interpretations as well as the varying interpretations within linguistics, I would hope it to be me. Different day, different time maybe..

The reason for applying those definitions was due to the fact that RedZeppelin implied that for one to be racist he must therefore be an oppressor, or one who oppresses.

I was providing definitions to emphasize the fact that nothing was mentioned or defined in that you must be ruling class in order to practice racism. (waiting for the inane change of subject "how can you practice racism" - I'll explain- Praciticing racism as in committing acts of racism -- what is hate crimes and degradation)


I'll be sure to call my travel agent, first class of course. Such a pompous little man you are

That entire post was directed towards RedZeppelin.

If you want recommendations, Southwest has a cheap one-way rate going on right now.

Come to think about it, Southwest doesn't have first class. I'd check with your travel agent to suit your needs.

Touche


How do they become like this? Is it the environment? Is it being poor? Living day to day? Growing up developing this attitude of survival of the fittest, knowing that if you do not go out and hustle everyday you are not going to eat. And that when someone threatens that, that you have to do something about it. Regardless of ethnicity.

I am sorry, not everything that crosses my mind involving urban areas is immediately reminiscient of thug life. I agree that the conditions in the ghettos are brought upon by negative effects of capitalism, I am not blaming the different cultures.

Similar to your accusations that I was implying you wrote whitey, do not assume I am putting blame on minorities for the way inner urban areas function.


But according to your definition "the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races" they must stab and shoot each other because the black man thinks that he is racially superior to the Latino

Obviously not all crime, nor even a large percent, between two minority groups is due to racism.

What I am trying to say is that it does exist. Only assuming you have witnessed any interactions between minorities within urban areas, would you not agree that there are groups of minorities that hold prejudice against other minorities and have committed hate crimes because of this.

It is not a small world after all.


So when he stabs him he must do it in the name of furthering the black race and that every killing in the ghetto of two different races, it's ok to say it, everybody knows urban is a nice way to say ghetto, must be do to racism and not the fact that people have to eat and get money and that tension might somehow happen when different cultures are forced to co-exist in this type of environment.

Cry me a river Hampton, you put words in my mouth.

Don't turn this into -- You don't believe that ghettos are forced to survive in the way they do because of the oppression brought upon them by society. -- I agree with you in a lot more than you would ever know, my entire thought complex isn't documented in the Che-Lives database.

Of course inner urban areas function the way they do for reasons brought upon by way of our government. I am not denying this, nor had this anything to do with the conversation. You just managed to find a way to slip it in there.

If it will help, take the scenario into the suburbs, rural areas even (California Valley).. Do you not believe it possible that a minority can hold a racial agenda towards another minority?

Let me say it again, as this one statement is the point of this entire speal..

Can you believe it possible that one minority group can hold a racial agenda towards another minority group?

No, I am not implying that all Latin-Americans practice racism towards African-Americans. But can you find it possible that it does take place, and it is possible?


What? I'm surprised whitey was not in gray. Well, let me explain what this fellow has really said. See what he puts words in italics it is implying that I said them. So in this case he is implying that I pretty much said "blame whitey". Which is an over simplification of the problem, but typical for him, he prefers the simple way of thinking things over. And when you wants you to think that I'm saying "blame whitey" it paints me as some sort of radical with one first in the air talking about "the man" and how he is "holding us down" if you can dig it jack. It's all bullshit, but then again so is who wrote it, so it is all relative.

What is it with these over-assumptions towards me lately?

All of my posts thus far, aside from the one earlier directed towards yourself (which doesn't have any whitey in italics mind you) have been directed towards RedZeppelin. Funny that the one that was directed towards you didn't have whitey italisized at all. Just as well, none of it was purposeful but to follow the sass in my physical speech.

You should really follow up in a government code-cracker analyzing career, you seem to like to rip my simplified text into a deeper meaning.. :unsure:

I think you are over estimating my ability Hampton, I'm flattered.


The words are not interchangeable and they do not mean the same thing, something that you do not seem to want to acknowledge.

What is -- both. Racism follows a prejudice.

I thought you stated earlier that words can hold varying definitions according to the interpretation and usage of the word.

Which is it yourself?

Once again, touche.

Now, did we really want to turn this into a grudge match? I know you don't find me very attractive, but no need to throw a fit over it.

----

The point behind this entire debate is to point out that one minority can infact be racist towards another minority. Simple as that. Do we agree or disagree? If you disagree, then let us start from scratch.

Agree with it or not, it is possible, and it does happen. This was the entire point of me questioning your motives RedZeppelin, hopefully I won't be misinterpreted.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 08:53 PM
White individuals can contribute to this real bigotry and therefore perpetuate racial subjugation of minorities. Minorities cannot.
What the fuck Victor? Now you are redefining bigotry.
I'm going to address your statements here and then I think I might stop wasting my time.


When white people come to realize that they're not being attacked by the minorities' prejudice, then it will no longer stand in the way of unification.

I already made a statement to this point. Saying it again won't make it true.


Besides, as long as the ruling class is in power and the white power structure exists, it is impossible to suppress the prejudice that some minorities hold against whites. Impossible. No matter how much we prioritize the extermination of it.

Well, maybe we should let everyone who isn't "white" be bigots. After all, it can't hurt anything. Also, homophobia isn't a threat, we should ignore that too


To attack our most oppressed class brothers who take no part in oppression would be counter revolutionary.

I thought there was a difference between attacking and educating, I guess I was wrong.


To fail to focus on the real tools of the bourgeoisie and instead obsess over your race being offended by inconsequential prejudice is counter revolutionar

Okay, first off, are you bringing my "race" into this? Because if you are, I am going to be REALLY pissed off.
Secondly, read my previous post because I have already stated how this "inconsequential prejudice," will FUCK OVER MINORITY GROUPS. Sectarianism will NEVER dissipate if you ALLOW BIGOTRY.

[DaCuBaN]

there is a difference between racial subjugation and racial prejudice.

The only difference is means.

[RedAnarchist]

Surely after the revolution, race, like class and the state, will cease? The workers will be united by class and will be able to see past the superficial.

[komon]

rascisme and fascisme is only your interpretation of fear against people who seem different to you(culturaly,and in choices,ideologics).how you translate it is up to you
but thinking als race means you agree with rascisme......anyway i don't.
and mankind is able to manipulate animals who will eventually split in race,and this go in all cultures......so the question is. are we inherent fascist and rascist.?

[refuse_resist]

Yes, anyone is capable of having racist feelings, no matter what "race" they are. People need to grow out of this mindset that somehow as human beings we are different "races", when in reality we all belong to the same race and that is the human race. In the end when it all comes down to it the only thing discrimination doesn't discriminate against is the discriminator.

Saying that when one person is racist and the other is racist and it's not bad is purley hypocritical. Of course anytime someone has these views the only ones who benefit from it are the ruling class. The more the proletariat tries to divide itself by creating such division, it will only serve the upper classes interests.

[komon]

The more the proletariat tries to divide itself by creating such division, it will only serve the upper classes interests.
i could agree with it but i won't
but take proletariat out of it and replace it by people then i will. other wise then you admit another submition and/or division

[synthesis]

...racism is to prejudice as a square is to a rectangle...

[cubist]

Both you and RedZeppelin are caught in the idea that somehow whiteys govern the entire world. No matter our international diplomacy, there are numerous countries on this planet that are not run by caucasian populations, thus making other ethnicities the ruling class.

aQ are you serious?

irelevant of who is in power, only two countries truly have not been controlled directly by white policy, even then trade embargos are placed to control the countries profits? cuba and north korea and spies are infiltrated into them

the west through the WTO and IMF controls the world and sitting in there pretty little homes are WHITE MEN, all other countries taht aren't rulled by white governments have been invaded re established by america, or are controlled by the WTO,

as far as the minorities are concerned there homeland and its people are still oppressed by whitey, and they get pigged and abused alot more than any white man will.



your liberal "white" protecting definitions only mean something to white people. as to other colours they still see the white man as an oppressive figure.

Cultures don't just let go of how they have been treated for the past 200 years, no matter how much your perfect humble head and your stupid ass dictionary wants them too.

[Hampton]

Which is why I clearly identified -- I am not one to throw around definitions, but honestly here.. -- before I gave the dictionary definitions. If anyone understands the idea of individual interpretations as well as the varying interpretations within linguistics, I would hope it to be me. Different day, different time maybe.

So you are just a hypocrite then?

I am sorry, not everything that crosses my mind involving urban areas is immediately reminiscient of thug life.

Well I'm sure it's not going to happen over a yachting accident at the country club. And "thug life" isn't necessarily a bad thing either.

Similar to your accusations that I was implying you wrote whitey, do not assume I am putting blame on minorities for the way inner urban areas function.

It is not about blaming minorities for their conditions, it is you saying, opps sorry, implying and over simplifying the argument into blame whitey for everything which is not true.

Only assuming you have witnessed any interactions between minorities within urban areas, would you not agree that there are groups of minorities that hold prejudice against other minorities and have committed hate crimes because of this.

Yes, I think I went on a field trip once to see them in their natural environment. C'mon.

I agree that certain prejudices are going to be there, that would not be uncommon, what would be uncommon is that if they were not there, but what power do they hold over each other?

Cry me a river Hampton, you put words in my mouth

It is the same thing if you had said "inner city".

I am not denying this, nor had this anything to do with the conversation. You just managed to find a way to slip it in there.

And you have managed to ignore it. In order to answer the question it is not just a simple yes or no answer, you have to look at the conditions in which things happen and their causes to get the whole picture and then you can have a definite answer to the question, it is much more complex than turning to page 467 in a book and having an answer.

Can you believe it possible that one minority group can hold a racial agenda towards another minority group?

If one group has a certain power of another group then yes. But as far as if it is the Bloods shooting Latin Kings then no.

I thought you stated earlier that words can hold varying definitions according to the interpretation and usage of the word.

The key word is according to the usage and interpretation, of course there are wrong ways to use a word. One of them is that prejudice equals racism or vice versa. As far as racism following a prejudice I would agree, of course then there is the word racism and how it is defined and how it is being applied to the situation.

Now, did we really want to turn this into a grudge match?

Don?t flatter yourself.

[komon]

rascisme is not personal and is mosly arrogant like fascism is.

[Urban Rubble]

If one group has a certain power of another group then yes. But as far as if it is the Bloods shooting Latin Kings then no.

Basically what it comes down to is semantics. You guys define racism as prejudice based on race coupled with oppression. That is certainly one defintion. We however, are defining it as anyone who holds the belief that race accounts for character traits.

Now, I know your definition is for sure racism, what I want to know is, why is ours NOT racism ? And if we're going to re-define words I'd like some evidence that shows us why your definition is the ONLY correct one.

In my opinion, you guys are talking about racial discrimination or racial oppression. We are talking about simple racism. RACism, the belief that race accounts for differences.

[komon]

n my opinion, you guys are talking about racial discrimination or racial oppression. We are talking about simple racism. RACism, the belief that race accounts for differences.

are you making differences in rascicme? or in the way you look upon others seeing yourself different and thus seeing other different and strange?
what is simple"rascicme"differences?differences needs you......

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

What the fuck Victor? Now you are redefining bigotry.
I'm going to address your statements here and then I think I might stop wasting my time.

You used bigotry in the context of "racism". As did I.


I already made a statement to this point. Saying it again won't make it true.

What you said in respect to that was this:


This is definitely it. This is part of it. I will not give up on any section of the working class. You can never tell who will come to the aid of our struggle if given the chance and what ability they will bring. We must aspire to end all forms of bigotry; they all propagate a divisive mentality that hinders the working class. If we do not denounce all forms of bigotry equally, we are favoring select members of the working class. If we are simultaneously promoting equality, we look like hypocrites and there is no better way to alienate the proletariat than to act against your own standards..

My reply was that white people will not be somehow disenfranchised from the movement if they realize that the prejudice of minorities is inconsequential.

Our standards are to fight oppression and subjugation. We cannot do that if we insist upon ignoring the difference between the immaterial prejudice of oppressed peoples and the oppressive racism of the ruling class. We cannot do that if we view the subjugation of an entire race in the same light as the unimpressive attacks upon the white power structure.


Well, maybe we should let everyone who isn't "white" be bigots. After all, it can't hurt anything. Also, homophobia isn't a threat, we should ignore that too

Homophobia is oppressive.

And we don't have the choice to "allow" non-whites to be bigots or not. We can choose to either condemn it or realize that does not contribute to the agenda of anyone who has the power to subjugate whites and accept that we cannot phase it out until the white power structure itself is destroyed.


I thought there was a difference between attacking and educating, I guess I was wrong.

If you're gonna hold a member of a minority's prejudice against whites in the same regard as racism, then I don't understand why you’d even want to bother educating either.

[Urban Rubble]

We can choose to either condemn it or realize that does not contribute to the agenda of anyone who has the power to subjugate whites and accept that we cannot phase it out until the white power structure itself is destroyed.

We can't condemn it and realize what you said at the same time ? Why do you think it's useless to condemn this backwards ass way of thinking ? Does condemning it mean we have to give up the fight to destroy the white power structure ? Or can you open your mind just a tiny little bit and realize that we can be opposed to 2 things at once ?


Our standards are to fight oppression and subjugation.

You left out the fight against reactionary ideas such as the belief that race has any bearing on how a person acts. A belief that whites and blacks alike are capable of holding. It is reactionary and deserves to be condemned. Condemned as fiercely as white racism ? Perhaps not, but condemned nontheless.


We cannot do that if we insist upon ignoring the difference between the immaterial prejudice of oppressed peoples and the oppressive racism of the ruling class

For the last time Victor. We are not ignoring that there is a difference between the two. Why do you insist on accusing us of something nobody has claimed ? We simply think that they BOTH constitute racism. Not that they are the same, not that they are equally as dangerous. We are simply saying they are both racism, though to different degrees.

I honestly want to know why you keep telling us there is a difference when nobody has said otherwise.


We cannot do that if we view the subjugation of an entire race in the same light as the unimpressive attacks upon the white power structure.

The thing is, it isn't always an attack on the white power structure. Sometimes it's just an attack on a white guy for the sake of hating white people.


If you're gonna hold a member of a minority's prejudice against whites in the same regard as racism, then I don't understand why you’d even want to bother educating either.

You're not even coming close to making sense anymore.

Why would it be useless to educate either side if you were going to hold a minority responsible for his own idiotic actions ?

[synthesis]

If you're gonna hold a member of a minority's prejudice against whites in the same regard as racism, then I don't understand why you’d even want to bother educating either.

It seems that this betrays the real issue at hand.

I don't know if anyone disagrees that our approach to battling racial prejudices should differ between that of whites and that of oppressed minorities.

The issue, though, is that the racial prejudices themselves are equally wrong and reactionary, no matter who holds them. Your rhetoric would appear to indicate a disagreement. Let us know if we're wrong.

[Individual]

Well it seems we've shredded my words down into multiple meanings.

We are over analyzing everything I have said and taking it at value that I have put meaning into each twist, something I am not capable of doing. I cannot put forth that much effort and thought into appeasing a perfect post.

Anyway, the issue that I initially wished to raise has still never been accounted for, and the guidelines of this debate have been manipulated in a direction that should have never been..

So, this should be simple enough.. Especially since RedZeppelin cannot face to answer my questions, nor can you Hampton instead of tearing my words apart searching for some hidden, deeper, meaning..

Here is my original post, the one post I had expected getting an answer from, and the one written simple enough that it shouldn't be hard to give an answer..

Would any of you care to answer this..?



Is an African-American a racist if he labels a Japanese-American a gook?

Is a Japanese-American a racist if he labels a Latino a spic?

Is a Latino a racist if he labels an African-American a nigger?

Is it a hate crime when an, using your everything goes word, oppressed Irish-American lynches an African-American?

By your standards we have ourselves a contradiction.

Because, by appearance, the Irishman has white skin (maybe just a pinch of tan, you never know) he must be racist.

Yet at the same time, because the Irishman is oppressed by the rest of us whiteys, it must not have been racism.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

We can't condemn it and realize what you said at the same time ? Why do you think it's useless to condemn this backwards ass way of thinking ? Does condemning it mean we have to give up the fight to destroy the white power structure ? Or can you open your mind just a tiny little bit and realize that we can be opposed to 2 things at once ?

You cannot simultaneously fight against minority prejudice and fight against the white power structure. The fight against minority prejudice negates the fact that the white power structure exists and is the inherent cause of minority prejudice. It would be a useless struggle.


You left out the fight against reactionary ideas such as the belief that race has any bearing on how a person acts. A belief that whites and blacks alike are capable of holding. It is reactionary and deserves to be condemned. Condemned as fiercely as white racism ? Perhaps not, but condemned nontheless.

I do not believe that race has any bearing on how people behave. That's the entire premise of my argument.

We're saying that whites have chosen to elevate themselves by oppressing other ethnicities based on race. That doesn't mean that something in the genetic makeup of minorities makes them incapable of oppression. They have simply been placed into that position by the ruling class.


For the last time Victor. We are not ignoring that there is a difference between the two. Why do you insist on accusing us of something nobody has claimed ? We simply think that they BOTH constitute racism. Not that they are the same, not that they are equally as dangerous. We are simply saying they are both racism, though to different degrees.

I honestly want to know why you keep telling us there is a difference when nobody has said otherwise.

Ignoring our disagreements on the meaning of the word racism, we can pretty much agree that there's a difference.

Just don't get angry at me because you changed your opinion. Remember that in your first post you did say that any distinction made on the grounds of color is disgusting and racist, even the differentiation of minority prejudice and racism.


The thing is, it isn't always an attack on the white power structure. Sometimes it's just an attack on a white guy for the sake of hating white people.

Yeah, you're probably right.
But as I said, "minority prejudice" is not oppression. Or "not as dangerous", as you said.


Why would it be useless to educate either side if you were going to hold a minority responsible for his own idiotic actions ?

If you're gonna hold minority prejudice in the same regard as ruling-class racism with the distinct purpose of subjugating said race, then why would want to educate them? Do you like to "educate" KKK members? If angry minorities are in the same boat, why would you wanna educate them?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

AQ, I did respond.


Contrary to popular belief, racism isn't just an offensive remark.
It's the subjugation of one's race by the ruling class.

Is the African American contributing to the oppression of Japanese-Americans?
No, because as a racially disenfranchised individual, he is no place to subjugate the Japanese fella.

The other hypothetical situations probably apply as well, but are essentially subjective.

[Individual]

That is no answer..


Contrary to popular belief, racism isn't just an offensive remark.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.. Contrary to popular belief, offensive remarks are still racism!

Beside, you still didn't even account for the lynching scenario. Don't get to analytical with the situation, you get the idea I am trying to put forth. It appears you have no real answer..

All of those situations are leading up to the event that .. Can one minority practice racism towards another minority? Is it possible, as they are both being oppressed?


Is the African American contributing to the oppression of Japanese-Americans?

The answer is assumingly no. Irrelevant besides..

The question is: Can the African-American pracitce racism towards the Japanese-American? Is that a plausible scenario in that mind of yours?


No, because as a racially disenfranchised individual, he is no place to subjugate the Japanese fella.

Two worker ants are subjugated under the queen ant. Is it possible that the one worker ant can kill the other worker ant? :o

[komon]

this is getting nowhere people can not
(and /or don't want) to understand each other (no need rascismme for it)
it is getting paroinac and could be(is) used by fascism.so fuck fascism.arogancy and ignorancy..fuck................. :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

:lol:

AQ, you're amusing, to say the least.
After I directly answer the question two times, you still accuse me of not having an answer! :lol:

No, a minority cannot practice racism against another minority. Racism is a tool of the ruling class, not of oppressed minorities. I believe we have said this innumerable times.

Maybe if you ask me the same question a few more times, it'll constitute as spam and we can finally ban you for good. :lol:


Two worker ants are subjugated under the queen ant. Is it possible that the one worker ant can kill the other worker ant?

Was it really necessary to turn this question into a metaphor?

You have now proven that you have no idea what oppression or racism are.

[komon]

personal.............

this is getting nowhere people can not
(and /or don't want) to understand each other (no need rascismme for it)
it is getting paroinac and could be(is) used by fascism.so fuck fascism.arogancy and ignorancy..fuck.................

:P :P :P

[Urban Rubble]

Komon, this discussion has nothing to do with fascism. Please stop attempting to relate our discussion on racial prejudice to an economic system.


You cannot simultaneously fight against minority prejudice and fight against the white power structure.

Yes, you can.

Plus, by your logic, racism being practiced by minorities is soley because of the white power structure, so fighting against the white power structure would in fact be fighting minority racism. Did your head just explode Victor ? :P Just kidding.

I don't see how you think it's impossible for me to think both white and minority racism are wrong simultaneously. That logic is lost on me. I'm doing it right now, look at me. At this very moment by thinking the way I do I am simultaneously fighting (or, at least opposing) both forms of prejudice.


I do not believe that race has any bearing on how people behave. That's the entire premise of my argument.

God Victor, I never frigging said you did. Come on, try to keep up.

You said that our purpose as leftists is to fight against oppression and subjugation. I added one more fight, the fight against reactionary ideas. The belief that race accounts for differences in people is reactionary, is it not ? So, no matter who holds that idea, I am saying it should be opposed by leftists because it is reactionary, and again, all reactionary ideas should be opposed. Do you understand what I just said ?


Just don't get angry at me because you changed your opinion. Remember that in your first post you did say that any distinction made on the grounds of color is disgusting and racist, even the differentiation of minority prejudice and racism.

I never changed my opinion. I said from the start that white racism is different because whites hold the power, but that racial prejudice when practiced by minorities is still racism. I have no tdeviated from that argument.

That's not a distinction based on white or black. It is a distinction based on who holds the power. Did you misunderstand me or do you think I'm wrong ?


But as I said, "minority prejudice" is not oppression.

I never said it was, I said it was racism. Racism does not HAVE TO include oppression.

And minorities ARE capable of oppressing white people on an individual level. Don't believe me ? I invite you to have your front teeth kicked in by a pair Timbos while being laughed at, told you shouldn't have wandered off from the country club and called a cracker. I sure as fuck felt oppressed returning home with half my teeth and a bloodied face.

[Individual]

Maybe I hadn't wanted to assume that as an answer, leaving you somewhat of credibility.

Ha-Ha, it is so damn funny, that character AQ.

Ha-Ha-Ha, did you hear the one about AQ's brain defunction. Now that was a good one, let me tell you!

Damn, what a life it must be to get your kicks over a misinterpretation on the internet.

"Now back to the matter at hand.."

How ignorant can you be? Minorities cannot be racist? :huh:

Come on RedZeppelin.. I wasn't even prepared with an answer to that one, you have took me by complete surprise.

How do you account for the racism that occurs on a daily basis between minorities? No matter what excuse you can cop-up, you have already made yourself look silly. Racism occurs on a daily basis between minorities!

There is nothing left to say, I am speechless, what you have said speaks for itself.

No, a minority cannot practice racism against another minority.

No, a minority cannot practice racism against another minority.

No, a minority cannot practice racism against another minority.

No, a minority cannot practice racism against another minority.

No, a minority cannot practice racism against another minority.

No, a minority cannot practice racism against another minority.

What you have just said defies logic entirely. You have proved it yourself, you have officially made an ignorant statement.

I don't know whether to put it in my signature, make flyers, print an ad in the newspaper, or just re-paste it enough times so that everyone else can see it.

You just took the cake and ran with it.

[Hampton]

Now, I know your definition is for sure racism, what I want to know is, why is ours NOT racism ? And if we're going to re-define words I'd like some evidence that shows us why your definition is the ONLY correct one.

In my opinion, you guys are talking about racial discrimination or racial oppression. We are talking about simple racism. RACism, the belief that race accounts for differences.

I don't think I have ever said it was the only definition, I posted it as another definion to the one that was posted earlier. And I don't think that I said that the other one was wrong, it simplifies the situation but it is not necessarily wrong.

If you want to differentiate between racism, racial discrimination and racial oppression then I think that might be semantics. And there is nothing simple about racism and how it is defined or what it is applied to, which is what occurs when you use a one sentence defination as the yard stick to answering the question.

That is all.

[komon]

like i say for me is fascime mother of all rascisme ,untill you see a diference i won't make difference between fasciscm and rascisme
and about racial prejudice is an economique system. read all other this thread again

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by 313C7 iVi4RX+Nov 24 2004, 07:04 AM--> (313C7 iVi4RX @ Nov 24 2004, 07:04 AM)
[email protected] 23 2004, 08:53 PM
To fail to focus on the real tools of the bourgeoisie and instead obsess over your race being offended by inconsequential prejudice is counter revolutionar

Okay, first off, are you bringing my "race" into this? Because if you are, I am going to be REALLY pissed off. [/b]
Well, whatever Victor, you aren't even responding to the content of my posts and you are putting words into my mouth. Are you suggesting my disagreement with you is influenced by my race!? You intentionally avoided this question. NOW FUCKING ANSWER IT!

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I never said it was, I said it was racism. Racism does not HAVE TO include oppression.

And minorities ARE capable of oppressing white people on an individual level. Don't believe me ? I invite you to have your front teeth kicked in by a pair Timbos while being laughed at, told you shouldn't have wandered off from the country club and called a cracker. I sure as fuck felt oppressed returning home with half my teeth and a bloodied face.

I think it was pretty clear that I meant that the oppression of whites as a whole by prejudiced minorities is impossible, like what is done to minorities as a whole by the racist white ruling class. Unless you can somehow prove that a race can be subjugated by insults.


I never changed my opinion. I said from the start that white racism is different because whites hold the power, but that racial prejudice when practiced by minorities is still racism. I have no tdeviated from that argument.

That's not a distinction based on white or black. It is a distinction based on who holds the power.

I completely agree.
Except for the part where prejudice as practiced by minorities is racism.

And you clearly changed your opinion. In your first post you denied any distinction between prejudice practiced upon different races, because all races are the same. And to fail to deny such a distinction is to deny that all races are equal.


God Victor, I never frigging said you did. Come on, try to keep up.

You did say that I was a racist. According to any definition, that includes the belief that race has bearing on how people behave.


You said that our purpose as leftists is to fight against oppression and subjugation. I added one more fight, the fight against reactionary ideas. The belief that race accounts for differences in people is reactionary, is it not ? So, no matter who holds that idea, I am saying it should be opposed by leftists because it is reactionary, and again, all reactionary ideas should be opposed. Do you understand what I just said ?

Reactionary means counter revolutionary. To stand in the way of progress or socialism. I already explained how minority prejudice does not do that.


Plus, by your logic, racism being practiced by minorities is soley because of the white power structure, so fighting against the white power structure would in fact be fighting minority racism. Did your head just explode Victor ?

Exactly!
But to fight against the white ruling class and consequently end minority prejudice, is not to necessarily target minority prejudice, as you condone.


I don't see how you think it's impossible for me to think both white and minority racism are wrong simultaneously. That logic is lost on me. I'm doing it right now, look at me. At this very moment by thinking the way I do I am simultaneously fighting (or, at least opposing) both forms of prejudice.

You can think both are wrong. You can think anything.
But is we, as the left, choose to target minority prejudice, we would be neglecting the fact that it cannot be overcome by fighting it. It can only be overcome by fighting the white power structure.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 20 2004, 06:05 PM
If a black man feels that all Mexicans are evil, smelly little thieves and that all blacks are intelligent, humble people who would never hurt a fly, is he not a racist ?

If a middle class Latino kid who has never experienced any racism in his life believes that the white pigment in my skin means I am a bad person and he chooses to spit in my face because I'm white, is he not a racist ?

How about a Costa Rican living in Costa Rica where he has never been oppressed by white people ? He has no reason to hate based on skin color as whites have never oppressed him, if he decides that skin color is important enough to determine whether or not someone is a good person is he not a racist ?

This thought that these "poor little minorities" need to have everything they do wrong explained and justified by a few self loathing middle class white kids is beyond racist. It's insulting, arrogant and yes, it is very racist. You are the ones making such distinctions based on skin color. You are the ones that are saying what is O.K for someone with A. skin color is wrong for someone with B. skin color. Distinctions based a skin pigment are wrong, no matter if you're hating them for it or if you're trying to help them. If you make decisions based on someone's color you are a run of the mill RACIST.
This thread should never have gone past this post.

Yes ofcourse, if you prejudge a human being, yes any human being, purely by physical attributes, you are wrong. Forget "racist".

That really should be the end of the conversation, however i can't help but continue, as you are making it more complex than it has to be.

I plan to never set foot agian in the proudly racist lands to the south, and I'll tell you what, I'm still not happy. In Canada we have replaced racism with "multi-culturalism".

Multi-culturalism: We'll have a capitalistic cerimony, one day out of the year to show the "importance" of the Chinese community in Vancouver. Then for the rest of the year we learn English and Quebecios in school. Even though I know chinese people 1,000-1 over frnch people. Aswell throughout the rest of the year, Chinese poeple hang out with their Chinese friends, never even so much as a hello to a white person or "european canadian". This scenario plays out as the childeren grow up, in their late teens, the day in day out descrimination takes it's toll. Chinese kids are brawling with the kids of Noth American cultures (Black, White, Native).

Witness the beauty of racialism in all it's splendor.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by 313C7 [email protected] 24 2004, 04:54 PM
Well, whatever Victor, you aren't even responding to the content of my posts and you are putting words into my mouth. Are you suggesting my disagreement with you is influenced by my race!? You intentionally avoided this question. NOW FUCKING ANSWER IT!
:unsure:
No.
I did not mean your race, necessarily.
I meant the race of whoever takes offense to minority prejudice.
Relax.
I don't even know what your race is.

[komon]

i just hope i could speak better english

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by RedZeppelin+Nov 24 2004, 10:11 PM--> (RedZeppelin @ Nov 24 2004, 10:11 PM)
313C7 [email protected] 24 2004, 04:54 PM
Well, whatever Victor, you aren't even responding to the content of my posts and you are putting words into my mouth. Are you suggesting my disagreement with you is influenced by my race!? You intentionally avoided this question. NOW FUCKING ANSWER IT!
:unsure:
No.
I did not mean your race, necessarily.
I meant the race of whoever takes offense to minority prejudice.
Relax.
I don't even know what your race is. [/b]
Good, I'm glad you addressed that question; I don't know why you didn't earlier.
I know you don't even know my "race," that's why it didn't make any sense for you to be making the statement toward me but as it was written it looked to possibly be a statement of prejudice against me. I just had to make sure, it didn't make sense. For future reference, you might want to be more careful to direct your generalizations in a way that is not also likely to be taken as an insult.

Though, I DO take offence to minority prejudice. I take offence to ALL bigotry. How can you justify bigotry Victor?

So, indirectly, are you saying my "race" has anything to do with my condemnation of all forms of bigotry?

[Individual]

Multi-culturalism: We'll have a capitalistic cerimony, one day out of the year to show the "importance" of the Chinese community in Vancouver. Then for the rest of the year we learn English and Quebecios in school. Even though I know chinese people 1,000-1 over frnch people. Aswell throughout the rest of the year, Chinese poeple hang out with their Chinese friends, never even so much as a hello to a white person or "european canadian". This scenario plays out as the childeren grow up, in their late teens, the day in day out descrimination takes it's toll. Chinese kids are brawling with the kids of Noth American cultures (Black, White, Native).

redcanada..

You are a liar.

That cannot happen, period. You are wrong, I am wrong, and that never happens!

Why you may wonder, as I wonder the same thing. I mean, we think we see shit like that happen, but our eyes must be playing tricks on us.

That cannot possibly be happening, here is why:

No, a minority cannot practice racism against another minority.

No, a minority cannot practice racism against another minority.

No, a minority cannot practice racism against another minority.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

For future reference, you might want to be more careful to direct your generalizations in a way that is not also likely to be taken as an insult.

My appologies.


Though, I DO take offence to minority prejudice. I take offence to ALL bigotry. How can you justify bigotry Victor?

I don't justify bigotry.
Have you read this thread?
I simply refuse to condone the incorporation of the struggle against minorities' prejudice into the leftist agenda. To phase out this type of racial prejudice we need to first exterminate the real enemy: the white power structure. Those who practice oppression and subjugation of other races is the white ruling class. Prejudice that some minorities hold against whites in no way contributes to or creates subjugation of another race.

AQ, you have once again proven yourself to have no idea what racism and oppression are.

Racism is the use of racial prejudice and forceful discrimination of a race in order to subjugate them as a whole. This cannot be achieved by minority groups. No matter how many whites they kill or how many white people they beat up. They cannot subjugate whites as whites have done to them.

But keep repeating that phrase. It gets funnier every time :lol:

[synthesis]

No matter how many whites they kill or how many white people they beat up. They cannot subjugate whites as whites have done to them.

What about Mugabe?

[Individual]

AQ, you have once again proven yourself to have no idea what racism and oppression are.

Racism is the use of racial prejudice and forceful discrimination of a race in order to subjugate them as a whole. This cannot be achieved by minority groups. No matter how many whites they kill or how many white people they beat up. They cannot subjugate whites as whites have done to them.

You are only trying to justify this in your own mind. In essence, you are talking to yourself.

Nowhere did I bring caucasians into the mix. Caucasians are not the minority, and minority is the only classification used in your little quote.

I am not talking about minorities practicing racism against whites.

I am clearly talking about minorities practicing racism against other minorirites, something which I would have assumed you realized you were talking about as well. Considering, of course, that you said it yourself:

No, a minority cannot practice racism against another minority.

Get your story straight here.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 12:07 AM

No matter how many whites they kill or how many white people they beat up. They cannot subjugate whites as whites have done to them.

What about Mugabe?
I wouldn't even go there, it's actually fairly irrelevant seeing as these situations are few and far between.

RZ,

Can a minority hold racist feelings?

Forget racially subjegate, and all that other shit.

Can a minority hold racist feelings?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Just the same, no minority has the social influence necessary to racially subjugate another minority.

What does Mugabe have anything to do with it?
We're not talking about Zimbabwe, but I'm sure that racism is an issue there as well.

[Eastside Revolt]

But can thery hold racist feelings?

Yes?

End of discussion.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Redcanada,

Don't bother. RZ's argument has been completely shredded several times over in this thread.

His last line of defense is that the word "racism" is not properly defined in the dictionary. His proof, the silly definition of "communism".

Now, we all know that the bourgeois dictionary can get certain complicated or politically inspired words wrong; however this is not one of them.

99 percent of the dictionary is completely accurate, period.

Perhaps in the future he may start to redefine the words "the", "is" and "above" to support another flimsy and nonsensical theory.

I don't like to have to break your balls so bad here RZ, but you are just falling so quickly into absurity that someone must follow Susan Powder's advice and "stop the madness".

[Urban Rubble]

I'm done with this. Victor and logic are old enemies.


What about Mugabe?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Bottom line, there is a difference between racism and racial oppression. At least that's what I think.

Victor, can you AT LEAST admit that it's RACIAL prejudice ? Can you concede that tiny little bit ?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I don't need to concede anything, you already admitted that racism perpetrated by whites should be regarded in a different light than that perpetrated by oppressed minorities because of the racial imbalance of our society.

I know that it's racial prejudice. That's what we've been calling it all along.


I don't like to have to break your balls so bad here RZ

You're breakin my balls here, RAF, you're breakin my balls. :lol:

On the subject of the meaning of the word "racism" and "prejudice", I think it's important to differentiate the meanings of the words if they mean different things. And Urban has already said that white aggression against minorities and minorities' aggression against whites are different things should be treated differently.

[Eastside Revolt]

RZ,

So answer this: If you got your ass kicked for being white, you wouldn't retaliate, because you happen to be the same race as the source of that anger?

Personally I would.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

If somebody was hitting me, I would hit back.
Is there a point here?

[Raisa]

I understand the point that Hampton and Victor are trying to make here.


Anyone can be racist. The only DIFFERENCE is that for the last few centuries white racism was the racism that mattered most becuase it was institutionalized.

[Individual]

Nobody is denying that ethicities other than caucasians suffer the worst from racism.

Nobody is denying that it is predominant that whites are the oppressors in racism.

What everyone, especially myself, is trying to point out to you RedZeppelin, is that minorities can practice racism, it does happen.

This was the entire point of this debate you have made with me, and it is something that you have flat out denied in the quote you provided me.

There is no changing subject, this is the one and final point trying to be made, you have made this so difficult.

You have admitted your ignorance, and unless you realize, which I assume you probably do, that you fucked up in saying that, than I am not sure there is much more to be heard.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

1


No, a minority cannot practice racism against another minority.

Oka.

Read about it.


2

This has become an absolutely stupid squabble over definitions - the facts of racialist ideology, specifically as they relate to "whitenes" are not in dispute. I think we can come to a general consensus that, under current conditions only "White" people have practical means of violently asserting a racist ideology, at least in North America.
That said, this represents a specific set of circumstances which is neither static nor universal. Thus, using the term racism to refer specifically to this set of circumstances is stupid, especially given its accepted/correct meaning as it refers to the ideology of alienable and distinct races.

[Danton]

racism n -- 1: the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races

Reactionary racially motivated attacks by blacks on whites whilst being theroetically possible are not borne out of historically held beleifs of superiority as the black man has been forcibly indoctrinated into feeling distinctly - inferior.

If we must define RACISM we should do so through the experiance of those who have suffered it in it's most extreme forms because history will. We must, on the basis of achieving equality acknowledge that, RACISM backed by power is different than racism as practiced by individuals.

It's re-addressing the balance, not tipping the scales. That is why it is our duty to advocate programs of positive discrimination in our schools and goverments and in law which give ethnic minorities the first opportunities of attaining positions of power.

[DaCuBaN]

Fuck me, aren't we all being stubborn today?

:unsure:

Way back somewhere in this thread, I mentioned (and vic shot down) the idea that racism, oppression, animal cruelty and so on mean absolutely jack shit anyway! It's capitalism and the mindset it creates that is the disease of which these are the symptoms

Come on, this is anti-authoritarianism 101 folks...

It's true, most of the power in this world is in the hands of the white man - Do you seriously consider things would be different were the "tables turned", and it was whitey who was shipped from his home to work the tobacco plantations?

It comes down to the fact that you don't really need a "reason" to subjegate someone - it's always an excuse to concentrate the power for your own ends; to keep someone you consider a "danger" from being in a position to do this. Race, in regards to oppression or subjegation, is irrelevant.

So again, what is racism?

[RedAnarchist]

i think the question should be, WHY is rascism?

I agree with Fidel, these are just symptoms of an illness that too many people suffer from. And Communism is not only the cure for capitalism, but for rascism et al.

[DaCuBaN]

I think the question should be, WHY is rascism?

This is precisely the reason as to why Racism is not a synonym for subjegation. Racism is just another tool in the arsenel of the "belittler": Others in use today include intelligence, aesthetics, maturity, sexuality and so on.

They're all just an excuse for the "superiority complex" that many hold. I know I oft think myself "right" more than I should...

[RedAnarchist]

Those who consider themselves superior should realize that a tortoise can beat an hare. Pobody's nerfect. :D

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 25 2004, 03:23 AM
This has become an absolutely stupid squabble over definitions - the facts of racialist ideology, specifically as they relate to "whitenes" are not in dispute. I think we can come to a general consensus that, under current conditions only "White" people have practical means of violently asserting a racist ideology, at least in North America.
Exactly


That said, this represents a specific set of circumstances which is neither static nor universal. Thus, using the term racism to refer specifically to this set of circumstances is stupid, especially given its accepted/correct meaning as it refers to the ideology of alienable and distinct races.

As it is today, whites are the only ones who can perpetuate racial oppression. But you're right, it's not static or universal.

It refers to no race in specific, that is also true. It refers to those who have the power to subjugate another race. Nobody is saying that whites are the only ones who can have this power, we're only referring to them because right now, they're the only ones.

AQ, minorities cannot practice racism. If they somehow acquire the means, they are obviously no longer minorities, are they?

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 04:57 AM
If somebody was hitting me, I would hit back.
Is there a point here?
Well...
.... if I believed I inherently deserved to be treated a way because of my genetic make up, I might comply.

[Osman Ghazi]

AQ, minorities cannot practice racism. If they somehow acquire the means, they are obviously no longer minorities, are they?

. Rwanda, case in point.

There, the Tutsi minority control the state and the Hutu majority take , even though it is about 9 to 1 Hutus to Tutsis.Minorities can't practice racism, huh? If you have state power you aren't a minority anymore?

Kind of blows that dumbass theory out of the water, huh?

[cubist]

osman you may need to extrapolate on that,

There, the Tutsi minority control the state and the Hutu majority take
take what?

[DaCuBaN]

minorities cannot practice racism

So.... the minority of british colonials who coined the words "wog" "nigger" and so on were not racist? I know in India, they were outnumbered by something absurd like 100-1, yet clearly the attitude and the means to suppress the locals existed.

In short, it was a minority practicing racism.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

In America, when we say minority, we mean any ethnicity that suffers discrimination and subjugation by the white power structure. My apologies for not making that clear. The British in Asia, Africa, and the Americas certainly do not count as a "minority" in the sense taht we're talking about.

[DaCuBaN]

I'll use an example from the US then:

What of the settlers from europe who drove out the "indian savages"? Did they not have racist intentions? Did they not seek to subjegate and in many cases even use genocide as the means to this end? Were they not a minority at that time?

Surely that too is racism?


when we say minority, we mean any ethnicity that suffers discrimination and subjugation by the white power structure

:huh:

You're missing the point, man. The white power structure is capitalism at work, not "racism". Nowadays, you can be any colour you like, so long as you play the game. Racism is simply another way for the power structure to oppress, just as it does in regards to the various other factors I listed, such as intelligence and sexuality.

[synthesis]

...this is by far one of the best examples of circular logic I've ever seen.

[komon]

you just say rascism has a logic and .

of course it is meaningless

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 11:49 PM
I don't justify bigotry.
You don't seem to denounce it, no matter how many times I ask you your stance on it.


Have you read this thread?

Read our exchange in this thread. I am not saying this to be offensive but to be blunt, there is nothing more hypocritical you could ask me. If you noticed, I have already asked you the same thing.


I simply refuse to condone the incorporation of the struggle against minorities' prejudice into the leftist agenda. To phase out this type of racial prejudice we need to first exterminate the real enemy: the white power structure. Those who practice oppression and subjugation of other races is the white ruling class. Prejudice that some minorities hold against whites in no way contributes to or creates subjugation of another race.

We are fighting against more than physical subjugation Victor. I would say that is actually the least of our problems. Mental subjugation is a greater threat and "minority prejudice" is ultimately a contributing factor to mental subjugation.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

"minority prejudice" is ultimately a contributing factor to mental subjugation.

How so?

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 03:17 AM

"minority prejudice" is ultimately a contributing factor to mental subjugation.

How so?
I don't know where to start so but this is basically the point I have been making all along, so as I said before:


The idea is that a black man is in the minority and his hate (pre-judice) isolates him. If this man (and people of a similar mindset) could unite with all class conscious workers of the human race, he would be part of a collective against the ruling class, that would bring us one step closer to ending their dominance.


We must aspire to end all forms of bigotry; they all propagate a divisive mentality that hinders the working class. If we do not denounce all forms of bigotry equally, we are favoring select members of the working class. If we are simultaneously promoting equality, we look like hypocrites and there is no better way to alienate the proletariat than to act against your own standards..


If these members or a minority are BIGOTS they are in turn provoking some due level of reasonable resistance.

This resistance will be something that throws the monkey-wrench in our movement, so to speak. This will be friction in our midst and cause fractionalization.


BIGOTS will not care if any of the people they hate understand them. They will continue to be bigots for some undeterminable period of time and will squander any chance of unification.

So we have to address the issues of bigotry before we can reach bigots.


By their prejudice they are accomplishing sectarianism and becoming great scapegoats for the ruling class.

If we don't stop prejudice in all forms, we are allowing the ruling class fuel for their crusade of ignorance.

I don't know if all of this equates to a good explanation but I am willing to expand on anything if you have specific questions.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?s...ic=30633&st=100 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=30633&st=100)

Third post down on that page covers this issue, does it not?
Otherwise, I'll get back to you on that later.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 06:12 AM
http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?s...ic=30633&st=100 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=30633&st=100)

Third post down on that page covers this issue, does it not?
Otherwise, I'll get back to you on that later.
I don't see that it comes even close to covering the issue and certainly not all of the points I made but I am also not sure I see the point you are trying to make.

Elaborate please...

[DaCuBaN]

white people will not be somehow disenfranchised from the movement if they realize that the prejudice of minorities is inconsequential.

I disagree that it's inconsequential:

Whilst a minority with prejudice towards the majority (or even another minority) cannot use their bigotry as a foundation for subjegation at the present moment, why should we allow them the foundation in the first place?

If these people think themselves "better" than another based purely on their "race", then surely they would be counted as reactionaries?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

That post explains why minorities cannot subjugate others races. "Mentally" or otherwise.

Guys, all the points that all of you are making have already been discussed before.

DC, read almost any of my posts for an answer to that question.

We need to stop this discussion here if no new points are gonna be brought foreword.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 05:11 PM
That post explains why minorities cannot subjugate others races. "Mentally" or otherwise.
What? I never said "minorities subjugate others races!" What the hell are you reading!?


Guys, all the points that all of you are making have already been discussed before.

Really? I know many of them have, I brought some of them up before others discussed them! Anyhow, you still haven’t addressed half of my points other then to respond about content that wasn't even included. Honestly, I don't understand what you are doing. I've never seen you so unresponsive... I feel like I'm bashing my head against a brick wall.

[DaCuBaN]

read almost any of my posts for an answer to that question

I disagree. I've been contributing to the latter half of this thread, and have read it in it's entirity: I do not believe you have covered this one question:


If these people think themselves "better" than another based purely on their "race", then surely they would be counted as reactionaries?

As such, I would appreciate your thoughts here.

This entire argument is purely one of semantics: The real question is the one above.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I have addressed that "one real question" dozens of times.

Because the racial prejudice of oppressed minorities does not contribute to the agenda of the ruling class, it does not have the influence necessary to subjugate any race as a whole, and is therefore not reactionary.

The only group that has that power is the capitalist class. Since oppressed minorities' racial prejudice does not contribute to the racial discrimination and subjugation of that class, it does not have any part in the oppression of any race, and therefore is not reactionary. It isn't oppressive, so it's not reactionary.

3ivi, you said:

"minority prejudice" is ultimately a contributing factor to mental subjugation.

Mental subjugation of what or who?
Another race, I presume. That is what racism and bigotry are, correct?
So I explained how minority racial prejudice indeed does not contribute to subjugation, as you claimed it did.

Any other points that you made and I failed to reply to, please post them again, and I guess I'll look at it again...

[DaCuBaN]

Because the racial prejudice of oppressed minorities does not contribute to the agenda of the ruling class, it does not have the influence necessary to subjugate any race as a whole, and is therefore not reactionary.

I'm afraid you'll have to define "reactionary" in this sense. I am using the following defintion, which I believe is in favour in this site:


Reactionary [is] used in revolutionary contexts interchangeably with the word counterrevolutionary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary

So we see that one need not be a supporter of the "old order" to be a reactionary: One must only practice thought or deed which is deemed by the "revolutionaries" to be detrimental to the revolution itself.

With this in mind, do you still mantain that racism cannot eminate from a minority? To wit:


Racism refers to beliefs, practices, and institutions that negatively discriminate against people based on their perceived or ascribed race.

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

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Reactionary means something that stands in the way of socialism. Counter revolutionary. i.e. an apparatus of the ruling class. The ruling class being the only group who would logically counter socialist revolution.

[DaCuBaN]

The ruling class being the only group who would logically [be reactionary]

Following the same logic, members such as AlwaysQuestion, James, Ortega and many others should never have been restricted. So which is it?

:unsure:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

They condone a ruling class agenda. Notice that I said logically.

[DaCuBaN]

Notice that I said logically.

Indeed - to which I countered:

Following the same logic, members such as [...] So which is it?


Counter revolutionary. i.e. an apparatus of the ruling class.

So for something to be reactionary, it must be "in the pay of" the ruling class? So AlwaysQuestion, Ortega, James etc are all in cahoots with the ruling class?

You're reaching, RZ.

The painful thing is, you nailed the definition of reactionary in your response, then proceeded to butcher it:


Reactionary means something that stands in the way of socialism. Counter revolutionary.

Thus anything that stands in the way of socialism - which can be argued as being synonymous with equality - is reactionary.

Do you disagree, and if so why?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

So for something to be reactionary, it must be "in the pay of" the ruling class? So AlwaysQuestion, Ortega, James etc are all in cahoots with the ruling class?

They condone a ruling class agenda. An agenda that works in the interests of the ruling class.


Thus anything that stands in the way of socialism - which can be argued as being synonymous with equality - is reactionary.

Do you disagree, and if so why?

I agree.
But the racial prejudice practiced by some individual members of a minority do not stand in the way of equality. They condone inequality, but unlike racism, they do not force another race into subjugation to their ethnicity. A few blacks can hate whites as much as they want to, but it will not subdue whites into a social position lower than that of which blacks have been forced into by the white ruling class, will it?

[DaCuBaN]

We're getting a little cyclical here...


A few blacks can hate whites as much as they want to, but it will not subdue whites into a social position lower than that of which blacks have been forced into by the white ruling class, will it?

Not at first, but post-revolution these people become a problem. Once we're all set and happy, total equality reigns and freedom abounds, these people will start to overt their ideas.

In short, they will try to subjectify those who they consider racially inferior - as such, they are no less a threat than those who share similar thoughts to the inverse but presently hold power.

Why is that not racism? Your entire argument rests on the principle that one cannot be racist if one does not have the power to subjugate/annihilate another. The only difference I can see is that one is an immediate problem, whilst the other is not.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

hate is hate

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I doubt that many racially prejudicial, racially oppressed minorities will continue to be hateful when the cause agisnt racism is won.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I doubt whether youre doubt is reasonable

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 10:47 PM
Because the racial prejudice of oppressed minorities does not contribute to the agenda of the ruling class...


Yes, it does. I have addressed this multiple times. You haven't even responded to my points.

prejudice of oppressed minorities = resistance to uniting the working class = fractionalization of any movements against the ruling class


3ivi, you said:

"minority prejudice" is ultimately a contributing factor to mental subjugation.

Mental subjugation of what or who?
Another race, I presume. That is what racism and bigotry are, correct?
So I explained how minority racial prejudice indeed does not contribute to subjugation, as you claimed it did.

No, not "another race." Minority racial prejudice is alienation from certain allies in the working class and thereby self induced mental subjugation.


Any other points that you made and I failed to reply to, please post them again, and I guess I'll look at it again...

I already did and you suggested that one of your posts covered them all. I would be pleased if you would go back and address them.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 29 2004, 07:08 PM

The other thread was closed, so I am asking it here.

What was the point in asking at all ?


Yes, I realise that, what is more important is the context in which he said it.

Again I ask, please lay out a situation where it is O.K to call Jews "penis mutilators". And when you do, lay out a few others. Would there be a time when I could call Mexicans wetbacks ? Africans spearchuckers ?


Along with other comments which certainly were taken out of context.

How were his rape threats taken out of context ?


Unless of course your name is Elijah Craig, where you apparently can get forgiven for anything, because "he was only joking". Danton you should take a leaf out of Elijah craigs book, claim you were only joking, because Urban Rubble will forgive anything, including rape threats, apparently.

If you don't think there is a difference between calling someone a "fucking trot" in a lighthearted manner and telling someone you're going to rape their girlfriend out of anger then you're fucking hopeless.


And why are you so bothered, if he did say it in order to display his dislike for jews and gay people, then the context in which it was said will support it.

It doesn't matter whether or not he said it with the intent to display his hatred for Jews. Again, if I call a Mexican a wetback, but I'm just pointing it out, not because I hate Mexicans, is that O.K ?

And, one more time, please tell me how calling Jews penis mutilators could possibly be complimentary.


Not scared it may turn out that your wrong are you?

No, there is no context in which racial slurs are appropriate (unless you were quoting someone else's words, but Danton wasn't).


That would b tragic wouldn't it, you may have to admit your not infallable.

You know, you're a real arrogant prick. If you want to take a shot at me, fine, but don't attempt to fit it into our little debate. This has nothing to do with me being wrong or right, fallable or infallable.

And you, the guy who wrote out a quiz and graded it to prove he was smarter than someone, have no business calling me arrogant.
Oh hell no... You guys need to take this argument elsewhere.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Yes, it does. I have addressed this multiple times. You haven't even responded to my points.

prejudice of oppressed minorities = resistance to uniting the working class = fractionalization of any movements against the ruling class

The racial prejudice practiced by some individual members of a minority do not stand in the way of equality. They condone inequality, but unlike racism, they do not force another race into subjugation to their ethnicity. A few blacks can hate whites as much as they want to, but it will not subdue whites into a social position lower than that of which blacks have been forced into by the white ruling class, will it?

If the working class movement focuses on fighting against racism, then logically, the prejudicial minorities will have no qualms with their white comrades, will they?

The question here, however, was whether or not the racial prejudice of oppressed minorities against whites was oppressive, and the answer is undoubtedly "no".

This applies to within the struggle as well. Within the revolutionary ranks, a few prejudiced minorities will not wield the power to exalt themselves racially. Therefore we should not look at their racial prejudices as attempts at such racial chauvinism.


Oh hell no... You guys need to take this argument elsewhere.

done

[DaCuBaN]

A few blacks can hate whites as much as they want to, but it will not subdue whites into a social position lower than that of which blacks have been forced into by the white ruling class, will it?

Indeed - but once equality reigns, these people still have the same mindset - that of a racist: One who believes themselves superior based on race.


The question here, however, was whether or not the racial prejudice of oppressed minorities against whites was oppressive

This was at least partially my fault, as I led the discussion down this line. The question is, however, can a minority hold racist feelings?

The answer, undoubtably, is yes.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I think we've all said what we think, and asking the same questions over and over isn't gonna do anything.


Indeed - but once equality reigns, these people still have the same mindset - that of a racist: One who believes themselves superior based on race.

A majority of them hold prejudice against whites because of the oppression they suffer from whites. When this oppression is lifted, their prejudice will be obsolete.

A few minorities, just as a few whites, will still have racial prejudice. However, they will not be able to subjugate other races or exalt their race above the others because socialism does not allow for that.



This was at least partially my fault, as I led the discussion down this line. The question is, however, can a minority hold racist feelings?

The answer, undoubtably, is yes.

This has to do with semantics.

The fact is that racially oppressed minorities cannot practice racial oppression.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 09:14 PM

Yes, it does. I have addressed this multiple times. You haven't even responded to my points.

prejudice of oppressed minorities = resistance to uniting the working class = fractionalization of any movements against the ruling class

The racial prejudice practiced by some individual members of a minority do not stand in the way of equality. They condone inequality, but unlike racism, they do not force another race into subjugation to their ethnicity. A few blacks can hate whites as much as they want to, but it will not subdue whites into a social position lower than that of which blacks have been forced into by the white ruling class, will it?

If the working class movement focuses on fighting against racism, then logically, the prejudicial minorities will have no qualms with their white comrades, will they?

The question here, however, was whether or not the racial prejudice of oppressed minorities against whites was oppressive, and the answer is undoubtedly "no".
Prejudice isn't logical, it is emotional; so prejudicial minorities will have qualms with their white comrades until and if they can logically overcome their hatred.
You are talking around my points; you don't have to use direct action to serve the ruling class, inaction works very well. If there is not opposition, the ruling class can simply impose it's will...


This applies to within the struggle as well. Within the revolutionary ranks, a few prejudiced minorities will not wield the power to exalt themselves racially. Therefore we should not look at their racial prejudices as attempts at such racial chauvinism.

Right but their ignorance will corrupt their action and the WC will lose unity as well as morale.


done
Thanks

[DaCuBaN]

A majority of them hold prejudice against whites because of the oppression they suffer from whites. When this oppression is lifted, their prejudice will be obsolete.

Nazism (in regards to the persecution of Jewish people) rose out of the trend for Jewish immigrants to take control of business within Germany, and to a greater extent Europe. If this were true, then there would be no Jew-hating Nazis left today.

Most certainly, they remain - they're hatred is utterly irrational, but that doesn't stop them. There is no reason to doubt that black supremacy will be any different, once the material conditions that enable white subjegation are removed - something that I wholeheartedly agree must be done.


The fact is that racially oppressed minorities cannot practice racial oppression.

Not on the same scale, for sure. It remains however, that subjugation can occur in smaller forms.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Prejudice isn't logical, it is emotional; so prejudicial minorities will have qualms with their white comrades until and if they can logically overcome their hatred.

This hardly makes sense..
It's illogical, but must be overcome logically? If logic isn't involved, then how will logic solve the problem?

And this also hardly disproves my point that once racial oppression is phased out, most prejudicial minorities will no longer have prejudice. As I said, there will always be some folks, of any race, that are prejudicial against another race.


You are talking around my points; you don't have to use direct action to serve the ruling class, inaction works very well. If there is not opposition, the ruling class can simply impose it's will...

So? What does this have to do with anything?


Right but their ignorance will corrupt their action and the WC will lose unity as well as morale.

Already answered this.


Nazism (in regards to the persecution of Jewish people) rose out of the trend for Jewish immigrants to take control of business within Germany, and to a greater extent Europe. If this were true, then there would be no Jew-hating Nazis left today.

Anti-Semitism in Europe (not necessarily nazism) was on the oppressive. This cannot be compared to the prejudice of oppressed minorities in the United States.


Not on the same scale, for sure. It remains however, that subjugation can occur in smaller forms.

Not the subjugation of a race, which is what the western ruling class has done to blacks. Prejudicial minorities cannot reverse this by calling white folks crackers.

[Urban Rubble]

Not the subjugation of a race, which is what the western ruling class has done to blacks. Prejudicial minorities cannot reverse this by calling white folks crackers.

See, this is the kind of thing that makes me accuse you of being an apologist for this kind of hatred. When you speak of white prejudice it is refered to as no less than a global cabal of old white men. Yet when you refer to minority prejudice it's limited to calling a few white guys crackers.

I understand that white racism is more prevelant and oppressive. But C'mon Victor, we have laid out numerous situations for you in which minority prejudice is manifested in more ways than just calling someone a name.

[DaCuBaN]

Prejudicial minorities cannot reverse this by calling white folks crackers.

At the present moment, yes. Whilst the "white power structure" remains, they can call whitey a cracker as much as they like, and it won't change a damn thing; but post-revolution? :blink:


Anti-Semitism in Europe (not necessarily nazism) was on the oppressive. This cannot be compared to the prejudice of oppressed minorities in the United States.

What... do you think they all woke up one morning and decided to persecute the jews? :lol: No, it started as a minority movement, and grew into one of the most feared regimse of the last century.

So it certailny can be compared to the US at present: You have provided no evidence to refute this.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 09:10 PM
At the present moment, yes. Whilst the "white power structure" remains, they can call whitey a cracker as much as they like, and it won't change a damn thing; but post-revolution? :blink:
This is just speculation.


What... do you think they all woke up one morning and decided to persecute the jews? :lol: No, it started as a minority movement, and grew into one of the most feared regimse of the last century.

It was never a "minority" movement. Jews were always the minority, and they were the scapegoats. The hatred was also largely based on "the crucifixion of Jesus by the heathen Jews".

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 02:01 AM
Prejudice isn't logical, it is emotional; so prejudicial minorities will have qualms with their white comrades until and if they can logically overcome their hatred.

This hardly makes sense..
It's illogical, but must be overcome logically? If logic isn't involved, then how will logic solve the problem?
How does it hardly make sense? You can APPLY logic to situations where people aren't thinking logically. Read it again; if they are behaving illogically, applied logic can overcome their irrational hatred.


And this also hardly disproves my point that once racial oppression is phased out, most prejudicial minorities will no longer have prejudice. As I said, there will always be some folks, of any race, that are prejudicial against another race.

Sigh... If you didn't even understand that point; how can you determine what it disproves? Why the hell should there always be prejudice!? You better give me a damn good reason; that whole humans are hateful and evil by nature spiel is bullshit.


So? What does this have to do with anything?
...Already answered this.

I've already explained that so many times...
Why do I have to keep addressing the same points from you, if we have gone through it? Is it perhaps as others have also said, that you are using circular logic?

[DaCuBaN]

I doubt that many racially prejudicial, racially oppressed minorities will continue to be hateful when the cause agisnt racism is won.

This is merely speculation.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

How does it hardly make sense? You can APPLY logic to situations where people aren't thinking logically. Read it again; if they are behaving illogically, applied logic can overcome their irrational hatred.

I could apply logic, but I hardly see how logic will suppress the illogical hatred that some people posses. If they're such illogical people, how would they manage to come to a logical conclusion, just because the leftist struggle is against them?


Sigh... If you didn't even understand that point; how can you determine what it disproves? Why the hell should there always be prejudice!? You better give me a damn good reason; that whole humans are hateful and evil by nature spiel is bullshit.

It's clear, from observing history, that people constantly try to exalt themselves from others. For an entire race, however, to gain power in opposition to another is racism, and I think that can be phased out.


I've already explained that so many times...
Why do I have to keep addressing the same points from you, if we have gone through it?

I ask the same thing!
I have already explained this stuff to you, 3ivi! You always try to counter it with what I just got through refuting, though.

Right but their ignorance will corrupt their action and the WC will lose unity as well as morale.

I have written about five rebuttals to this claim.


This is merely speculation.

It's rather obvious that their prejudice is due to the oppression they suffer. So it's not completely speculative.

[DaCuBaN]

It's rather obvious that their prejudice is due to the oppression they suffer.

I could understand this... If we hadn't all just agreed that prejudice is entirely illogical. What of those who, under our current system, hold prejudice in the form of white>black? They are not oppressed, nor even threatened by those "uppity niggers", as they are in a position of power.

They don't hold their prejudice as a result of oppression: Why should it be any different; just because your skin is darker in hue?


So it's not completely speculative.

Correct: It's completely false.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 03:03 AM
How does it hardly make sense? You can APPLY logic to situations where people aren't thinking logically. Read it again; if they are behaving illogically, applied logic can overcome their irrational hatred.

I could apply logic, but I hardly see how logic will suppress the illogical hatred that some people posses.
Logic doesn’t suppress illogical hatred, it eradicates it. When you apply logic you are dispelling the mentality that allows irrationally formed hatred created of indoctrination and desperation.


If they're such illogical people, how would they manage to come to a logical conclusion, just because the leftist struggle is against them?

I wouldn't call them "illogical people." Many bigots are otherwise rational and even "decent" people. Its just when a particular prejudice they have developed arises, they are blinded by it.
I believe this is why you can find people that seem reasonable other than having slight prejudices in just about any area, such as sex/gender, sexual orientation, age, nationality, social class, religion and/or any basic human inferiority complex. Often they have good ideas and an understanding of issues but come to the wrong conclusions due to prejudice and are thus limited in their perception.

The leftist struggle isn't against these people; it is against their ignorance and most likely their actions.
This is why I was making the point that we must be against all forms of bigotry. If people with curtain prejudices see what we stand for, what we are against and what we have to offer, they may be able to see parallels in forms of bigotry and the logical end of joining our movement.



Sigh... If you didn't even understand that point; how can you determine what it disproves? Why the hell should there always be prejudice!? You better give me a damn good reason; that whole humans are hateful and evil by nature spiel is bullshit.

It's clear, from observing history, that people constantly try to exalt themselves from others. For an entire race, however, to gain power in opposition to another is racism, and I think that can be phased out.

Are people trying to "exalt themselves from others," or are they simply trying to attain and keep a meaningful position in society? I believe many people are simply confused about how to achieve this; you understand how diluted societies can be with propaganda of "work hard and prosper," and unbearable social pressure. In recent society, the most prominently espoused definition of “success” I see is domination. This lie can sink to the core of every broken person that every reached out for their dreams and was trampled on. This lie is forced upon you and imposed by social hierarchy. I have faced this lie, I have gone along with it at an early age in naiveté but I have grown to view it as the greatest of hypocrisies and to condemn it in all forms.

I possibly went off track a bit but I believe I made a point and I should say that I have always thought of us fairly reasonable people Victor. The conflict between us has escalated at times to a disturbing level but I want you to know that I understand how frustrating this thread has been and I am not trying to fight you.

In solidarity,
-313C7 iVi4RX

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

in reply to DC


I could understand this... If we hadn't all just agreed that prejudice is entirely illogical.

Are you denying that prejudice is illogical?


What of those who, under our current system, hold prejudice in the form of white>black? They are not oppressed

What does the act of one holding racism in the form of "white>black"(??) have anything to do with one being oppressed?


They don't hold their prejudice as a result of oppression: Why should it be any different; just because your skin is darker in hue?

"Their" prejudice is a form of exalting themselves and subduing other ethnicities. It's different because "they" are not racially disenfranchised by the ruling class.

in reply to 3iVi


Logic doesn’t suppress illogical hatred, it eradicates it. When you apply logic you are dispelling the mentality that allows irrationally formed hatred created of indoctrination and desperation.

What do you think that we can do to somehow drive these people to apply logic to their notions of prejudice? All we can do is remove the cause: their oppression.


The leftist struggle isn't against these people; it is against their ignorance and most likely their actions.
This is why I was making the point that we must be against all forms of bigotry. If people with curtain prejudices see what we stand for, what we are against and what we have to offer, they may be able to see parallels in forms of bigotry and the logical end of joining our movement.

We can certainly fail to condone their prejudice, but we cannot place it in the same category as oppression. That's my point.


Are people trying to "exalt themselves from others," or are they simply trying to attain and keep a meaningful position in society? I believe many people are simply confused about how to achieve this; you understand how diluted societies can be with propaganda of "work hard and prosper," and unbearable social pressure. In recent society, the most prominently espoused definition of “success” I see is domination. This lie can sink to the core of every broken person that every reached out for their dreams and was trampled on. This lie is forced upon you and imposed by social hierarchy. I have faced this lie, I have gone along with it at an early age in naiveté but I have grown to view it as the greatest of hypocrisies and to condemn it in all forms.

I agree.
But I don't think that this motivation to dominate is the purpose for the racial prejudice of oppressed minorities. That prejudice, i suspect, is a failed attempt to increase their status in society in comparison to their oppressors, by trying to reverse the oppression.


I possibly went off track a bit but I believe I made a point and I should say that I have always thought of us fairly reasonable people Victor. The conflict between us has escalated at times to a disturbing level but I want you to know that I understand how frustrating this thread has been and I am not trying to fight you.

In solidarity,
-313C7 iVi4RX

Right on, man.

[DaCuBaN]

RZ, wikipedia defines prejudice as: "...the process of "pre-judging" something. In general, it implies coming to a judgement on the subject before learning where the preponderance of the evidence actually lies."

As such, oppressed minorities don't hold prejudice: Their hatred for "whitey" is founded in logic.

So...


Are you denying that prejudice is illogical?


Of course not! I'm denying that the example you are giving is prejudice at all!


What does the act of one holding racism in the form of "white>black"(??) have anything to do with one being oppressed?

It doesn't: It refers to racism, to wit: "...beliefs, practices, and institutions that negatively discriminate against people based on their perceived or ascribed race."

[leftist resistance]

Yes,why not?

But a minority is likely to hold racist feelings due to helplessness,injustice or oppression by members of the majority.

While a majority may become racist because he sees the minority as pests.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 08:44 PM

Logic doesn’t suppress illogical hatred, it eradicates it. When you apply logic you are dispelling the mentality that allows irrationally formed hatred created of indoctrination and desperation.

What do you think that we can do to somehow drive these people to apply logic to their notions of prejudice? All we can do is remove the cause: their oppression.
No, we can also condemn their irrational responses and logically explain social conditions.


We can certainly fail to condone their prejudice, but we cannot place it in the same category as oppression. That's my point.

"fail to condone" !? We can CONDEMN their IRRATIONAL responses. I don't disagree with your "point," it may be the "lesser of two evils" but it is still wrong, and that is my point.


I agree.
But I don't think that this motivation to dominate is the purpose for the racial prejudice of oppressed minorities. That prejudice, i suspect, is a failed attempt to increase their status in society in comparison to their oppressors, by trying to reverse the oppression.

Doesn’t that mean they are attempting to dominate their oppressors? I will admit this is an absurd idea but by this attempt to "reverse the oppression," they are creating the facade of a threat to the dominant oppressors and so abetting the creation of fervor against their cause. Prejudice is always counterproductive, so we must always speak out against it.

[ComradeHuipe]

i agree dat a minority can hold racist view..how could he not..he is human..

saying dat a minority cannot hold racist view doesnt make sense...

racism itself is not racist...it applies to everyone...whether black, white, brown, and any other color...its jus dat most people think dat racism needs to be actually acted out..when it doesnt...it could just be the mere thought that someone thinks they are better than you simply the color of their skin...

...but in the end, there is no place for that in this world....one person may hate someone due to their color, which they dont choose, how can you hate someone for something they have no control of?

you cant...

we need to learn to be tolerant of all othe people....through the internet we learn to talk to many different people, and we dont know their color, yet we may interact with them, wouldnt it be great if dat could be applied to real life....

we could talk to anyone and no see their color....we could agree or disagree with anyone regardless of their color...

racism has always been here, and always will be....unfortunately.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 07:49 PM
racism has always been here, and always will be....unfortunately.
You made some really good points until this one. Racism is caused by the culture of domination in society; groups of people can and have lived without it. Look back at the posts in this thread; I know I have covered this at least once.

[ComradeHuipe]

when i said dat racism will always be here, it was a general statement...i am not sayin that there are groups or socities that have lived without racism..there has been...

i am all for the abolishment of racism, cus its jus bad...but we ahve to start with ourselves...and hopefully it catches on, but it might not...cus there will always be someone who thinks that they are better than someone else simply due to their skin color....

i am happy dat der are people who dont see a persons skin color but their true selves...a human being...

[Elect Marx]

What happened to this thread; did people run out of points to make?

It didn't appear that we came to some conclusion. Maybe I can get it started up again later...

[Urban Rubble]

I think that Victor is the only left arguing it, and that guy wn't be convinced no matter how much of that crazy ole "logic" we throw at him.

But it really came down to semantics in the end. Is racism "racial oppression" or is racist thoughts. I think it all comes down what thoughts are in your head.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Rubble, it's interesting that you're the one to show up in this thread talking about logic...
Didn't we already disprove your point completely and didn't you already concede? But you keep arguing.


(Urban Rubble)
Distinctions based a skin pigment are wrong, no matter if you're hating them for it or if you're trying to help them. If you make decisions based on someone's color you are a run of the mill RACIST.

a few pages later....


(Urban Rubble)
We simply think that they BOTH constitute racism. Not that they are the same, not that they are equally as dangerous. We are simply saying they are both racism, though to different degrees.

Give up already.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

No, we can also condemn their irrational responses and logically explain social conditions.

I said that this would do no good because white oppression would still be present.
We've been through this already.


"fail to condone" !? We can CONDEMN their IRRATIONAL responses. I don't disagree with your "point," it may be the "lesser of two evils" but it is still wrong, and that is my point.

What's the point of telling them that it's wrong?
It's not necessarily wrong, because it has no actual negative outcomes, does it? Because they have no power to actually inflict oppression upon their target.
By that I mean racial oppression. Meaning for one race to be marginalized. A few prejudicial minorities can't do that to the white race. Therefore: not racism. Not oppression. No actual harm. Entirely arbitrary.

Your other point is addressed above. :)

I stopped answering because We're just debating what we've already debated before. In this very same thread. Many times. Over and over and over. So i stopped. But if you wanna go on...

[Urban Rubble]

My God. You're so full of shit. I never conceded anything.

Like I explained to your slow witted ass the last time you made this statement. Those two quotes are not contradictory. Me saying that white racism is more dangerous than black racism is not a distinction based on skin color, it is a distinction based on who holds the power. It is still racism either way (unless of course you want to redefine the word, which you do) but I have always agreed that one is more oppressive than the other. Obviously.

You're cute. How many times are you going to repeat yourself ? Stating your ridiculous claims over and over does not make them right.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

but I have always agreed that one is more oppressive than the other. Obviously.

No, you haven't.
You insited repeatedly that any distinctinction made between minorities and whites is racist and disgusting.

But whatever you say...

[Malleus Malificarum]

What's the point of telling them that it's wrong?
It's not necessarily wrong, because it has no actual negative outcomes, does it? Because they have no power to actually inflict oppression upon their target.

Wrong. They have the power to cause their target to inflict oppression upon itself, and to that end, all racism is wrong.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I never denied that racism is wrong. Racism is despicable.
My point is that the prejudice held against whites by some oppressed minorities does not constitute as racism because minorities cannot subjugate whites as a whole, as whites have done to minorities as a whole.

How do they have the power to cause their target to inflict oppression upon themselves? How the fuck do you arrive at such an absurd conclusion?

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 08:22 PM

No, we can also condemn their irrational responses and logically explain social conditions.

I said that this would do no good because white oppression would still be present.
We've been through this already.


What? It would help disable bigotry. Bigotry is always destructive Victor!
In this case it is self destructive so it would help a whole hell of a lot.
Oh never-mind you are right, it wouldn't help; it's best that the most disenfranchised groups in society live under the dilutions of bigotry. I mean; why help them understand their situation, let alone anything? After all; what can they do? If white racism exists, minority groups are weak and helpless.

Damn right we have been thought this, or at least I have. I think you have gotten lost along the way.



"fail to condone" !? We can CONDEMN their IRRATIONAL responses. I don't disagree with your "point," it may be the "lesser of two evils" but it is still wrong, and that is my point.

What's the point of telling them that it's wrong?
It's not necessarily wrong, because it has no actual negative outcomes, does it? ...............

I stopped answering because We're just debating what we've already debated before. In this very same thread. Many times. Over and over and over. So i stopped. But if you wanna go on...

Because it is FUCKING WRONG? IS BIGOTRY OKAY!? EVER!? I have debated the topic; you have responded to half of my points, as you saw fit. I want to go on but I question weather you will ever address the issues at hand.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Don't you think that I will respond to all of your other points the exact same way I've been addressing every fucking point made in this thread thus far?

This has been really repetitive for me. I'm very surprised that you're actually still wondering what I have to say about any of these issues...


Because it is FUCKING WRONG? IS BIGOTRY OKAY!? EVER!?

It's only wrong because it's an ignorant opinion. It's a generalization. But it's not really harmful. So acting like it's a force of oppression or an obstacle to revolution would be a waste of time and effort. Because it's none of those things.


Bigotry is always destructive Victor!

Okay....?

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 06:35 AM
Don't you think that I will respond to all of your other points the exact same way I've been addressing every fucking point made in this thread thus far?

This has been really repetitive for me. I'm very surprised that you're actually still wondering what I have to say about any of these issues...


Because it is FUCKING WRONG? IS BIGOTRY OKAY!? EVER!?

It's only wrong because it's an ignorant opinion. It's a generalization. But it's not really harmful. So acting like it's a force of oppression or an obstacle to revolution would be a waste of time and effort. Because it's none of those things.


Bigotry is always destructive Victor!

Okay....?
Fine Victor, don't address my points. I don't know why you even pretend to be interested in discussing this; you refuse to acknowledge significant statements let-alone respond to them.

If you are just going to make statements previously proven wrong and refuse to do otherwise even when I bring it to your attention; I guess this conversation is over with.

I really thought you might be reasonable about this Victor but I guess not.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I'm not interested in discussing this, but I have no idea what points I have failed to address.


What? It would help disable bigotry. Bigotry is always destructive Victor!
In this case it is self destructive so it would help a whole hell of a lot.
Oh never-mind you are right, it wouldn't help; it's best that the most disenfranchised groups in society live under the dilutions of bigotry. I mean; why help them understand their situation, let alone anything? After all; what can they do? If white racism exists, minority groups are weak and helpless.

Damn right we have been thought this, or at least I have. I think you have gotten lost along the way.

To this I replied:
It's only wrong because it's an ignorant opinion. It's a generalization. But it's not really harmful. So acting like it's a force of oppression or an obstacle to revolution would be a waste of time and effort. Because it's none of those things.


Because it is FUCKING WRONG? IS BIGOTRY OKAY!? EVER!? I have debated the topic; you have responded to half of my points, as you saw fit. I want to go on but I question weather you will ever address the issues at hand.

To this I replied the same exact thing because you ,made the exact same point.
It's only wrong because it's an ignorant opinion. It's a generalization. But it's not really harmful. So acting like it's a force of oppression or an obstacle to revolution would be a waste of time and effort. Because it's none of those things.

[Xvall]

On this board there seems to be a rather unique and bizzarre opinion that a minority (blacks, asians, latinos) cannot be racist.

Who here has said this? I'm sorry, but I've never heard a single person on the board claim that this statement is true.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I'm not certain as to what you're getting at Drake, but that's a good point. We're saying that in most Western societies, where such minorities have suffered from racial oppression, it is not possible for them to practice racial oppression.

It's obvious that "Hispanic", "Black", or "Asian" does not equal "oppressed".