|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Norway28692 Posts
On January 24 2023 16:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2023 15:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The thing about words is they don't have an intrinsic meaning attributed to them, they mean what we collectively decide that they mean. For most words this in unproblematic because we generally agree, but racism/racist is a bit contentious. However the meanings of 'thinks one ethnic group is superior to another' or 'hates people of a particular ethnic group' are fairly straight forward and has pretty strong support. It's not a word you'll get unanimous consent of the meaning of, because it is an insult that also happens to, depending on which definition you choose and how you interpret said definition, describe literally everyone to some degree. (Add 'thinks ethnic groups should be treated differently' and every quota scheme or targeted policy to reverse historic injustices qualifies, go with the aforementioned two and 'black people are better dancers than white people' might.)
So the best we can do is probably to have several definitions that all happen to be contextual and accept that certain forms of racism are more harmful than others. Honky and nigger can both be racist while one is more racist and more hurtful. 'I don't want my daughter dating a white boy' and 'I'm not employing a black guy' are both racist but one is arguably more damaging than the other. 'White people can't dance' is probably mildly racist but not in a way that offends me at all (also I'm a great dancer), while 'black people can't do math' is obviously racist in a more harmful way (in particular because of a historical context where we've decided that humanity is defined and separated from 'animals' through our capacity for thinking and where we recognize that much of the dehumanizing that has targeted black people has taken the form of describing them as 'more animal-like', and then for example through highlighting physical attributes while diminishing mental ones. All of this essentially backs up the notion that white people being racist is generally more harmful than black people being racist, but obviously the capacity is there for everyone. To be clear, raycism as prejudice + power is not about being "more harmful", it's about it being a fundamentally different thing happening, including on the interpersonal level. It's a substantive difference not just in magnitude of harm but in form and function. Essentially anyone can be "racist" but only white people are being raycist when they do it. That's not to be confused with the mistaken notion that only white people can advocate or engage in white supremacy.
Maybe add a new word 'raycist' and give that the appropriate definition for that word while having racist have the more commonly accepted current definition 
|
On January 24 2023 16:28 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2023 16:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 24 2023 15:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The thing about words is they don't have an intrinsic meaning attributed to them, they mean what we collectively decide that they mean. For most words this in unproblematic because we generally agree, but racism/racist is a bit contentious. However the meanings of 'thinks one ethnic group is superior to another' or 'hates people of a particular ethnic group' are fairly straight forward and has pretty strong support. It's not a word you'll get unanimous consent of the meaning of, because it is an insult that also happens to, depending on which definition you choose and how you interpret said definition, describe literally everyone to some degree. (Add 'thinks ethnic groups should be treated differently' and every quota scheme or targeted policy to reverse historic injustices qualifies, go with the aforementioned two and 'black people are better dancers than white people' might.)
So the best we can do is probably to have several definitions that all happen to be contextual and accept that certain forms of racism are more harmful than others. Honky and nigger can both be racist while one is more racist and more hurtful. 'I don't want my daughter dating a white boy' and 'I'm not employing a black guy' are both racist but one is arguably more damaging than the other. 'White people can't dance' is probably mildly racist but not in a way that offends me at all (also I'm a great dancer), while 'black people can't do math' is obviously racist in a more harmful way (in particular because of a historical context where we've decided that humanity is defined and separated from 'animals' through our capacity for thinking and where we recognize that much of the dehumanizing that has targeted black people has taken the form of describing them as 'more animal-like', and then for example through highlighting physical attributes while diminishing mental ones. All of this essentially backs up the notion that white people being racist is generally more harmful than black people being racist, but obviously the capacity is there for everyone. To be clear, raycism as prejudice + power is not about being "more harmful", it's about it being a fundamentally different thing happening, including on the interpersonal level. It's a substantive difference not just in magnitude of harm but in form and function. Essentially anyone can be "racist" but only white people are being raycist when they do it. That's not to be confused with the mistaken notion that only white people can advocate or engage in white supremacy. Are Chinese not being Raycist in China?
The short answer is: no. There's a lot of potential longer answers, but the simplest one is: No, they can't be, because they aren't white. A slightly more complicated longer answer is: White supremacy, US hegemony, and European colonialism are inextricable from raycism in a way that can't be equated in China. That isn't to say racial prejudices don't exist in China, but there's no Chinese analog for stuff like Blanqueamiento in North Korea or whatever.
|
What are people who don’t understand the concept of structural suppression and therefore claim that black people are actually not suppressed? Just like they don’t understand that they themselves are being structurally suppressed when they happen to be poor and uneducated. Not that they are completely unaware of their suppression, but their anger is usually vaguely directed at certain political parties or elites.
For context, I’m talking about my experience in Germany, however I could imagine this taking place in the US in a somewhat similar fashion, albeit having an entirely different history leading up to the situations. I can think of many people in my rural hometown, where I have observed exactly this. They watch news about some incident and get presented with numbers showing the criminal over-representation of some marginalized group. From there, they lump all individuals of said group together and speak negatively about them. Except for a few anecdotal counterexamples they genuinely like, which prevents them from ever thinking they could be racist.
Actually while writing, I noticed that they are, in fact, racist. But their fears and beliefs are manipulated to be this way, and they also can’t help to critically think themselves out of it. They are passive racists. Calling them just racist doesn’t help the discourse. Rather than changing definitions of words, classify the kind of racism you are actually talking about.
|
On January 24 2023 17:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2023 16:28 Acrofales wrote:On January 24 2023 16:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 24 2023 15:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The thing about words is they don't have an intrinsic meaning attributed to them, they mean what we collectively decide that they mean. For most words this in unproblematic because we generally agree, but racism/racist is a bit contentious. However the meanings of 'thinks one ethnic group is superior to another' or 'hates people of a particular ethnic group' are fairly straight forward and has pretty strong support. It's not a word you'll get unanimous consent of the meaning of, because it is an insult that also happens to, depending on which definition you choose and how you interpret said definition, describe literally everyone to some degree. (Add 'thinks ethnic groups should be treated differently' and every quota scheme or targeted policy to reverse historic injustices qualifies, go with the aforementioned two and 'black people are better dancers than white people' might.)
So the best we can do is probably to have several definitions that all happen to be contextual and accept that certain forms of racism are more harmful than others. Honky and nigger can both be racist while one is more racist and more hurtful. 'I don't want my daughter dating a white boy' and 'I'm not employing a black guy' are both racist but one is arguably more damaging than the other. 'White people can't dance' is probably mildly racist but not in a way that offends me at all (also I'm a great dancer), while 'black people can't do math' is obviously racist in a more harmful way (in particular because of a historical context where we've decided that humanity is defined and separated from 'animals' through our capacity for thinking and where we recognize that much of the dehumanizing that has targeted black people has taken the form of describing them as 'more animal-like', and then for example through highlighting physical attributes while diminishing mental ones. All of this essentially backs up the notion that white people being racist is generally more harmful than black people being racist, but obviously the capacity is there for everyone. To be clear, raycism as prejudice + power is not about being "more harmful", it's about it being a fundamentally different thing happening, including on the interpersonal level. It's a substantive difference not just in magnitude of harm but in form and function. Essentially anyone can be "racist" but only white people are being raycist when they do it. That's not to be confused with the mistaken notion that only white people can advocate or engage in white supremacy. Are Chinese not being Raycist in China? The short answer is: no. There's a lot of potential longer answers, but the simplest one is: No, they can't be, because they aren't white. A slightly more complicated longer answer is: White supremacy, US hegemony, and European colonialism are inextricable from raycism in a way that can't be equated in China. That isn't to say racial prejudices don't exist in China, but there's no Chinese analog for stuff like Blanqueamiento in North Korea or whatever.
Hopefully Uighurs being genocided in China today as well as Tibetans being oppressed for decades and indeed modern Africans and other nations of color being economically exploited by the Belt and Road Initiative can take some solace in the fact that they are contributing to a postmodern future by being oppressed by supporting China's thousands-of-years-old home-grown history of conquest and making the wise choice of being oppressed by people who aren't white.
|
On January 24 2023 17:19 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2023 16:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 24 2023 15:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The thing about words is they don't have an intrinsic meaning attributed to them, they mean what we collectively decide that they mean. For most words this in unproblematic because we generally agree, but racism/racist is a bit contentious. However the meanings of 'thinks one ethnic group is superior to another' or 'hates people of a particular ethnic group' are fairly straight forward and has pretty strong support. It's not a word you'll get unanimous consent of the meaning of, because it is an insult that also happens to, depending on which definition you choose and how you interpret said definition, describe literally everyone to some degree. (Add 'thinks ethnic groups should be treated differently' and every quota scheme or targeted policy to reverse historic injustices qualifies, go with the aforementioned two and 'black people are better dancers than white people' might.)
So the best we can do is probably to have several definitions that all happen to be contextual and accept that certain forms of racism are more harmful than others. Honky and nigger can both be racist while one is more racist and more hurtful. 'I don't want my daughter dating a white boy' and 'I'm not employing a black guy' are both racist but one is arguably more damaging than the other. 'White people can't dance' is probably mildly racist but not in a way that offends me at all (also I'm a great dancer), while 'black people can't do math' is obviously racist in a more harmful way (in particular because of a historical context where we've decided that humanity is defined and separated from 'animals' through our capacity for thinking and where we recognize that much of the dehumanizing that has targeted black people has taken the form of describing them as 'more animal-like', and then for example through highlighting physical attributes while diminishing mental ones. All of this essentially backs up the notion that white people being racist is generally more harmful than black people being racist, but obviously the capacity is there for everyone. To be clear, raycism as prejudice + power is not about being "more harmful", it's about it being a fundamentally different thing happening, including on the interpersonal level. It's a substantive difference not just in magnitude of harm but in form and function. Essentially anyone can be "racist" but only white people are being raycist when they do it. That's not to be confused with the mistaken notion that only white people can advocate or engage in white supremacy. Maybe add a new word 'raycist' and give that the appropriate definition for that word while having racist have the more commonly accepted current definition
I've already made that concession to TL. I was just clarifying that BJ's and other's confusion on raycism as prejudice + power as a concept/framework is rooted in pedantic semantics, not substantive incongruency.
The aversion of folks to letting the term racism evolve, although related, is another ball of wax. I will say it's deeply rooted in respectability politics though.
|
On January 24 2023 17:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2023 16:28 Acrofales wrote:On January 24 2023 16:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 24 2023 15:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The thing about words is they don't have an intrinsic meaning attributed to them, they mean what we collectively decide that they mean. For most words this in unproblematic because we generally agree, but racism/racist is a bit contentious. However the meanings of 'thinks one ethnic group is superior to another' or 'hates people of a particular ethnic group' are fairly straight forward and has pretty strong support. It's not a word you'll get unanimous consent of the meaning of, because it is an insult that also happens to, depending on which definition you choose and how you interpret said definition, describe literally everyone to some degree. (Add 'thinks ethnic groups should be treated differently' and every quota scheme or targeted policy to reverse historic injustices qualifies, go with the aforementioned two and 'black people are better dancers than white people' might.)
So the best we can do is probably to have several definitions that all happen to be contextual and accept that certain forms of racism are more harmful than others. Honky and nigger can both be racist while one is more racist and more hurtful. 'I don't want my daughter dating a white boy' and 'I'm not employing a black guy' are both racist but one is arguably more damaging than the other. 'White people can't dance' is probably mildly racist but not in a way that offends me at all (also I'm a great dancer), while 'black people can't do math' is obviously racist in a more harmful way (in particular because of a historical context where we've decided that humanity is defined and separated from 'animals' through our capacity for thinking and where we recognize that much of the dehumanizing that has targeted black people has taken the form of describing them as 'more animal-like', and then for example through highlighting physical attributes while diminishing mental ones. All of this essentially backs up the notion that white people being racist is generally more harmful than black people being racist, but obviously the capacity is there for everyone. To be clear, raycism as prejudice + power is not about being "more harmful", it's about it being a fundamentally different thing happening, including on the interpersonal level. It's a substantive difference not just in magnitude of harm but in form and function. Essentially anyone can be "racist" but only white people are being raycist when they do it. That's not to be confused with the mistaken notion that only white people can advocate or engage in white supremacy. Are Chinese not being Raycist in China? The short answer is: no. There's a lot of potential longer answers, but the simplest one is: No, they can't be, because they aren't white. A slightly more complicated longer answer is: White supremacy, US hegemony, and European colonialism are inextricable from raycism in a way that can't be equated in China. That isn't to say racial prejudices don't exist in China, but there's no Chinese analog for stuff like Blanqueamiento in North Korea or whatever.
I beg your pardon?
Chinese colonialism/expansionism is easily as ubiquitous as its European counterpart, and is still ongoing.
They are currently (and have been for decades) active genociding Tibetans and Uyghurs in large part for racial reasons.
|
On January 24 2023 18:11 Mikau313 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2023 17:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 24 2023 16:28 Acrofales wrote:On January 24 2023 16:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 24 2023 15:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The thing about words is they don't have an intrinsic meaning attributed to them, they mean what we collectively decide that they mean. For most words this in unproblematic because we generally agree, but racism/racist is a bit contentious. However the meanings of 'thinks one ethnic group is superior to another' or 'hates people of a particular ethnic group' are fairly straight forward and has pretty strong support. It's not a word you'll get unanimous consent of the meaning of, because it is an insult that also happens to, depending on which definition you choose and how you interpret said definition, describe literally everyone to some degree. (Add 'thinks ethnic groups should be treated differently' and every quota scheme or targeted policy to reverse historic injustices qualifies, go with the aforementioned two and 'black people are better dancers than white people' might.)
So the best we can do is probably to have several definitions that all happen to be contextual and accept that certain forms of racism are more harmful than others. Honky and nigger can both be racist while one is more racist and more hurtful. 'I don't want my daughter dating a white boy' and 'I'm not employing a black guy' are both racist but one is arguably more damaging than the other. 'White people can't dance' is probably mildly racist but not in a way that offends me at all (also I'm a great dancer), while 'black people can't do math' is obviously racist in a more harmful way (in particular because of a historical context where we've decided that humanity is defined and separated from 'animals' through our capacity for thinking and where we recognize that much of the dehumanizing that has targeted black people has taken the form of describing them as 'more animal-like', and then for example through highlighting physical attributes while diminishing mental ones. All of this essentially backs up the notion that white people being racist is generally more harmful than black people being racist, but obviously the capacity is there for everyone. To be clear, raycism as prejudice + power is not about being "more harmful", it's about it being a fundamentally different thing happening, including on the interpersonal level. It's a substantive difference not just in magnitude of harm but in form and function. Essentially anyone can be "racist" but only white people are being raycist when they do it. That's not to be confused with the mistaken notion that only white people can advocate or engage in white supremacy. Are Chinese not being Raycist in China? The short answer is: no. There's a lot of potential longer answers, but the simplest one is: No, they can't be, because they aren't white. A slightly more complicated longer answer is: White supremacy, US hegemony, and European colonialism are inextricable from raycism in a way that can't be equated in China. That isn't to say racial prejudices don't exist in China, but there's no Chinese analog for stuff like Blanqueamiento in North Korea or whatever. I beg your pardon? Chinese colonialism/expansionism is easily as ubiquitous as its European counterpart, and is still ongoing. They are currently (and have been for decades) active genociding Tibetans and Uyghurs in large part for racial reasons.
That's not an analog to Blanqueamiento in South America. Tibet isn't North/South America, India, the Middle East, Africa, etc. Also global Chinese hegemony isn't the status quo. Besides the clear geographical discrepancies, there's all sorts of downstream impacts from those discrepancies integrated into a prejudice + power framework for raycism.
That raycism isn't applicable to "Chinese" (which is obviously not an analogue to "white people" in this context) shouldn't bother anyone or really be disputable imo.
|
Norway28692 Posts
On January 24 2023 18:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2023 17:19 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 24 2023 16:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 24 2023 15:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The thing about words is they don't have an intrinsic meaning attributed to them, they mean what we collectively decide that they mean. For most words this in unproblematic because we generally agree, but racism/racist is a bit contentious. However the meanings of 'thinks one ethnic group is superior to another' or 'hates people of a particular ethnic group' are fairly straight forward and has pretty strong support. It's not a word you'll get unanimous consent of the meaning of, because it is an insult that also happens to, depending on which definition you choose and how you interpret said definition, describe literally everyone to some degree. (Add 'thinks ethnic groups should be treated differently' and every quota scheme or targeted policy to reverse historic injustices qualifies, go with the aforementioned two and 'black people are better dancers than white people' might.)
So the best we can do is probably to have several definitions that all happen to be contextual and accept that certain forms of racism are more harmful than others. Honky and nigger can both be racist while one is more racist and more hurtful. 'I don't want my daughter dating a white boy' and 'I'm not employing a black guy' are both racist but one is arguably more damaging than the other. 'White people can't dance' is probably mildly racist but not in a way that offends me at all (also I'm a great dancer), while 'black people can't do math' is obviously racist in a more harmful way (in particular because of a historical context where we've decided that humanity is defined and separated from 'animals' through our capacity for thinking and where we recognize that much of the dehumanizing that has targeted black people has taken the form of describing them as 'more animal-like', and then for example through highlighting physical attributes while diminishing mental ones. All of this essentially backs up the notion that white people being racist is generally more harmful than black people being racist, but obviously the capacity is there for everyone. To be clear, raycism as prejudice + power is not about being "more harmful", it's about it being a fundamentally different thing happening, including on the interpersonal level. It's a substantive difference not just in magnitude of harm but in form and function. Essentially anyone can be "racist" but only white people are being raycist when they do it. That's not to be confused with the mistaken notion that only white people can advocate or engage in white supremacy. Maybe add a new word 'raycist' and give that the appropriate definition for that word while having racist have the more commonly accepted current definition I've already made that concession to TL. I was just clarifying that BJ's and other's confusion on raycism as prejudice + power as a concept/framework is rooted in pedantic semantics, not substantive incongruency. The aversion of folks to letting the term racism evolve, although related, is another ball of wax. I will say it's deeply rooted in respectability politics though.
Tbh I have no problems with the word racism evolving. Languages are organic, words change meaning over time. That's all fine with me.
But it is a gradual process, and no authoritative source I can find anywhere has given a definition for racism that makes it impossible for black people to be racist. (BJ's objection, the way I understood it, was with some people claiming black people cannot be racist. Your argument, as far as I understand it, is that black people can be racist, but not raycist.)
I can't think of any other word where the definition is so hard to agree upon. (I've taken part of this as an international academic exercise as well). However, insofar as a word has a meaning, it is the meaning that has the most consensus, and regarding racism, I've found that the most consensus is found on a combination of two definitions: 1: Racism is the belief of 'the superiority' of a certain 'race' and especially wrt mental abilities (saying x group on average is taller is not racist even if you believe taller is better), 2: Racism is the act of discriminating based on 'race'/'ethnicity'. Stuff like 'x culture is better than y culture' is a statement where there's much less consensus on that being racist. Some will argue it is, while others only accept the 'racist' term to apply to statements rooted in biology.
You can add to it, but how accepted the new or altered definition is literally depends upon how accepted the new or altered definition is.
|
On January 24 2023 18:40 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2023 18:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 24 2023 17:19 Liquid`Drone wrote:On January 24 2023 16:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 24 2023 15:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The thing about words is they don't have an intrinsic meaning attributed to them, they mean what we collectively decide that they mean. For most words this in unproblematic because we generally agree, but racism/racist is a bit contentious. However the meanings of 'thinks one ethnic group is superior to another' or 'hates people of a particular ethnic group' are fairly straight forward and has pretty strong support. It's not a word you'll get unanimous consent of the meaning of, because it is an insult that also happens to, depending on which definition you choose and how you interpret said definition, describe literally everyone to some degree. (Add 'thinks ethnic groups should be treated differently' and every quota scheme or targeted policy to reverse historic injustices qualifies, go with the aforementioned two and 'black people are better dancers than white people' might.)
So the best we can do is probably to have several definitions that all happen to be contextual and accept that certain forms of racism are more harmful than others. Honky and nigger can both be racist while one is more racist and more hurtful. 'I don't want my daughter dating a white boy' and 'I'm not employing a black guy' are both racist but one is arguably more damaging than the other. 'White people can't dance' is probably mildly racist but not in a way that offends me at all (also I'm a great dancer), while 'black people can't do math' is obviously racist in a more harmful way (in particular because of a historical context where we've decided that humanity is defined and separated from 'animals' through our capacity for thinking and where we recognize that much of the dehumanizing that has targeted black people has taken the form of describing them as 'more animal-like', and then for example through highlighting physical attributes while diminishing mental ones. All of this essentially backs up the notion that white people being racist is generally more harmful than black people being racist, but obviously the capacity is there for everyone. To be clear, raycism as prejudice + power is not about being "more harmful", it's about it being a fundamentally different thing happening, including on the interpersonal level. It's a substantive difference not just in magnitude of harm but in form and function. Essentially anyone can be "racist" but only white people are being raycist when they do it. That's not to be confused with the mistaken notion that only white people can advocate or engage in white supremacy. Maybe add a new word 'raycist' and give that the appropriate definition for that word while having racist have the more commonly accepted current definition I've already made that concession to TL. I was just clarifying that BJ's and other's confusion on raycism as prejudice + power as a concept/framework is rooted in pedantic semantics, not substantive incongruency. The aversion of folks to letting the term racism evolve, although related, is another ball of wax. I will say it's deeply rooted in respectability politics though. + Show Spoiler +
Tbh I have no problems with the word racism evolving. Languages are organic, words change meaning over time. That's all fine with me.
But it is a gradual process, and no authoritative source I can find anywhere has given a definition for racism that makes it impossible for black people to be racist. (BJ's objection, the way I understood it, was with some people claiming black people cannot be racist. Your argument, as far as I understand it, is that black people can be racist, but not raycist.)
I can't think of any other word where the definition is so hard to agree upon. (I've taken part of this as an international academic exercise as well). However, insofar as a word has a meaning, it is the meaning that has the most consensus, and regarding racism, I've found that the most consensus is found on a combination of two definitions: 1: Racism is the belief of 'the superiority' of a certain 'race' and especially wrt mental abilities (saying x group on average is taller is not racist even if you believe taller is better), 2: Racism is the act of discriminating based on 'race'/'ethnicity'. Stuff like 'x culture is better than y culture' is a statement where there's much less consensus on that being racist. Some will argue it is, while others only accept the 'racist' term to apply to statements rooted in biology.
You can add to it, but how accepted the new or altered definition is literally depends upon how accepted the new or altered definition is.
I hope you did that on purpose The point is that the "racism = prejudice + power" framework that suggests only white people are racist ( meaning raycist) isn't incongruent with calling Kanye a white supremacist.
The other primary point being that even just seemingly similar examples of interpersonal racial discrimination/prejudice are fundamentally different when white people do it in not just magnitude of harm but form and function.
|
I still don't see how you make the leap from "prejudice + power = racism", which is allready not the mainstream opinion, to but only when white people (or white supermacy?).
At that point why not just go for "prejudice + white person/supermacy = racist"? At least that would make sense (and be obviously racist).
|
It's just trying to inflate a grand narrative until people can't recognize what they have in front of them (i.e. a black anti-semite). It's the contemporary version of the Catholic church explaining why the world is flat.
The truly laughable part of that line of reasoning it is that all surveys I can find indicate that antisemitism is much bigger problem among blacks than whites in America.
|
GH is making a cultural relativistic argument for racism if I'm correct, which I'm not necessarily against. I'm just not sure if, just because Western circumstances were different from Eastern, we get to entirely different results. I'm willing to argue that the exclusion/discriminatory part of the brain is quite basal due to it being important in early social/tribal interactions and that we've had to evolve quote a bit on top of that. What I'm trying to say is: xenophoby, or fear of outsiders, is quite a universal reaction and the way we deal with it is in turn quite universal as well.
Society has become so complex that structural issues against ethnicities/demographies are, at times, deeply rooted in the sense that they can't just be changed because we acknowledge them. These are more nuanced and problematic because they carry over to the citizens that inhabit those societies, but are not necessary part of the first group. It's 'simply' an artifact of a society constructed and possibly maintained in a restrictive way, but to point at its citizens as being responsible for these constructions, or telling them they need to change them is problematic. Not only is it not always obvious, but it's sometimes case by case or location based. The problem becomes even more complex when even people that would/should be classified as members of your own demographic don't or only partially agree. Awareness and gradual change (or hoping for a mass boomer/gerontocratic exodus) is the most effective solution I believe. I think I had more to say but I got lost in my train of thought lol.
|
United States43020 Posts
On January 24 2023 17:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2023 16:28 Acrofales wrote:On January 24 2023 16:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 24 2023 15:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The thing about words is they don't have an intrinsic meaning attributed to them, they mean what we collectively decide that they mean. For most words this in unproblematic because we generally agree, but racism/racist is a bit contentious. However the meanings of 'thinks one ethnic group is superior to another' or 'hates people of a particular ethnic group' are fairly straight forward and has pretty strong support. It's not a word you'll get unanimous consent of the meaning of, because it is an insult that also happens to, depending on which definition you choose and how you interpret said definition, describe literally everyone to some degree. (Add 'thinks ethnic groups should be treated differently' and every quota scheme or targeted policy to reverse historic injustices qualifies, go with the aforementioned two and 'black people are better dancers than white people' might.)
So the best we can do is probably to have several definitions that all happen to be contextual and accept that certain forms of racism are more harmful than others. Honky and nigger can both be racist while one is more racist and more hurtful. 'I don't want my daughter dating a white boy' and 'I'm not employing a black guy' are both racist but one is arguably more damaging than the other. 'White people can't dance' is probably mildly racist but not in a way that offends me at all (also I'm a great dancer), while 'black people can't do math' is obviously racist in a more harmful way (in particular because of a historical context where we've decided that humanity is defined and separated from 'animals' through our capacity for thinking and where we recognize that much of the dehumanizing that has targeted black people has taken the form of describing them as 'more animal-like', and then for example through highlighting physical attributes while diminishing mental ones. All of this essentially backs up the notion that white people being racist is generally more harmful than black people being racist, but obviously the capacity is there for everyone. To be clear, raycism as prejudice + power is not about being "more harmful", it's about it being a fundamentally different thing happening, including on the interpersonal level. It's a substantive difference not just in magnitude of harm but in form and function. Essentially anyone can be "racist" but only white people are being raycist when they do it. That's not to be confused with the mistaken notion that only white people can advocate or engage in white supremacy. Are Chinese not being Raycist in China? The short answer is: no. There's a lot of potential longer answers, but the simplest one is: No, they can't be, because they aren't white. A slightly more complicated longer answer is: White supremacy, US hegemony, and European colonialism are inextricable from raycism in a way that can't be equated in China. That isn't to say racial prejudices don't exist in China, but there's no Chinese analog for stuff like Blanqueamiento in North Korea or whatever.
Honestly I find it kinda racist that you think Europe’s brief foray into imperialism in the last few hundred years is somehow inaccessible to China, an empire thousands of years old. Whites just aren’t that special, we’re not genetically better at colonialism. We did it recently and in the place that you live but that doesn’t mean that the Chinese didn’t and couldn’t do it. It’s odd that you can’t imagine a world in which the Chinese might wield the same cultural and racial supremacy, even within China. Like they’re noble savages that can’t attain the higher tech tree.
Presumably you dismiss all the experience of black people experiencing systemic, structural, state sanctioned racism in China. You’ll correct them and let them know that it couldn’t have been racism.
|
If you really want to have fun you ask yourself if its racist to only consider Caucasians to be capable of racism.
|
On January 24 2023 14:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2023 13:37 Sermokala wrote:+ Show Spoiler +That isn't a sufficient argument though. There are more races out there than just black and white people. There are more people having this conversation than just american white people and american black people. We do not live in an isolated bubble in the new world where our words are just ment to be applied to be applied for the very specific case of how black people are treated in the united states of America. It is just and exhausting and worthless argument to have that does nothing but shut down any possible progress by dividing the only forces in the country that are even pretending to help the problem. You GH are part of that half the country that is supporting the side that wants to remove even the "historical/contemporary experience of people as told from outside the most intense glare of the omnipresent white gaze" that we have today.
You do not live in a country that cares about third party politics or third party influences. Those were stamped out more than a generation ago in the united states. All the well intentioned and righteous bashing you do against the democratic party in america does is help republicans with your efforts. That is the reality of the world you live in. We can want change in america but the only way your voice or opinion matters is if you win the election. Do you want things to get better in the united states or do you want them to get worse? This binary question is the only one you are allowed to make. It's not that I don't understand your position, it's just that I find it to be a modern rehashing of loyalist arguments borne of similar motives. I strongly suspect it's a refluffed refrain we can find ahead of most major steps of societal progress. I simply don't find it compelling.
You very clearly don't understand my position, and I find your characterization of it being anti social progress some how or supportive of the racist establishment to be insultingly ignorant by you. I'm part of the side that wants things to get better in the nation and I'm telling you that you're not on that side. You need to look around at the world you live in and understand your position in it. You're repeated insistence to exhaust and divide the only part of the country that wants things to get better, is in effecting any possibility for things to get better.
MLK complained about the white moderate but do you really think that the best way to get them on your side is to insist that they're exceptionally the only ones that are capable of being racist? That no other possible hate between non-white people matters beacuse white people are just that exceptionally hateful? You are the one that is supporting the "loyalist" part of the country with this.
On January 24 2023 23:33 Gorsameth wrote:
If you really want to have fun you ask yourself if its racist to only consider Caucasians to be capable of racism.
This is primarly what baffles me. How do you get any sense of social justice by saying that white people are just that much better at something that no non-white people can ever do. The entire thing just reeks of self accepting the "omnipresent white gaze" as being a legitimate and correct thing that should happen. That we will never have an equal world beacuse white people will always have to be the sumpreme race opressing people.
|
On January 24 2023 23:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2023 17:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 24 2023 16:28 Acrofales wrote:
Are Chinese not being Raycist in China?
The short answer is: no. There's a lot of potential longer answers, but the simplest one is: No, they can't be, because they aren't white. A slightly more complicated longer answer is: White supremacy, US hegemony, and European colonialism are inextricable from raycism in a way that can't be equated in China. That isn't to say racial prejudices don't exist in China, but there's no Chinese analog for stuff like Blanqueamiento in North Korea or whatever. Honestly I find it kinda racist that you think Europe’s brief foray into imperialism in the last few hundred years is somehow inaccessible to China, an empire thousands of years old. Whites just aren’t that special, we’re not genetically better at colonialism. We did it recently and in the place that you live but that doesn’t mean that the Chinese didn’t and couldn’t do it. It’s odd that you can’t imagine a world in which the Chinese might wield the same cultural and racial supremacy, even within China. Like they’re noble savages that can’t attain the higher tech tree. Presumably you dismiss all the experience of black people experiencing systemic, structural, state sanctioned racism in China. You’ll correct them and let them know that it couldn’t have been racism.
The question was, if Chinese could be raycists. After a quick search, I couldn’t find anything useful regarding that term and I started wondering why everybody started throwing around with it. My conclusion is that it was made up by GH or coined by some author who researches in racist topics, and does not refer to the general concept of racism but rather to the white/western brand of racism with all its specific phenomena, such as Blanqueamiento. If the term is defined in that way, you might also say that Chinese cannot be raycist. But I don’t see the point in bringing it up during the Kanye West debate...
Atleast this is the only way I see to make any sense of the last pages. On the other hand, if the statement really was that Chinese cannot be racist, then I strongly disagree and am deeply confused how one could come up with it.
|
On January 24 2023 23:58 smille wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2023 23:14 KwarK wrote:On January 24 2023 17:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 24 2023 16:28 Acrofales wrote:
Are Chinese not being Raycist in China?
The short answer is: no. There's a lot of potential longer answers, but the simplest one is: No, they can't be, because they aren't white. A slightly more complicated longer answer is: White supremacy, US hegemony, and European colonialism are inextricable from raycism in a way that can't be equated in China. That isn't to say racial prejudices don't exist in China, but there's no Chinese analog for stuff like Blanqueamiento in North Korea or whatever. Honestly I find it kinda racist that you think Europe’s brief foray into imperialism in the last few hundred years is somehow inaccessible to China, an empire thousands of years old. Whites just aren’t that special, we’re not genetically better at colonialism. We did it recently and in the place that you live but that doesn’t mean that the Chinese didn’t and couldn’t do it. It’s odd that you can’t imagine a world in which the Chinese might wield the same cultural and racial supremacy, even within China. Like they’re noble savages that can’t attain the higher tech tree. Presumably you dismiss all the experience of black people experiencing systemic, structural, state sanctioned racism in China. You’ll correct them and let them know that it couldn’t have been racism. The question was, if Chinese could be raycists. After a quick search, I couldn’t find anything useful regarding that term and I started wondering why everybody started throwing around with it. My conclusion is that it was made up by GH or coined by some author who researches in racist topics, and does not refer to the general concept of racism but rather to the white/western brand of racism with all its specific phenomena, such as Blanqueamiento. If the term is defined in that way, you might also say that Chinese cannot be raycist. But I don’t see the point in bringing it up during the Kanye West debate... Atleast this is the only way I see to make any sense of the last pages. On the other hand, if the statement really was that Chinese cannot be racist, then I strongly disagree and am deeply confused how one could come up with it.
Yes, and that question is answered by pointing out Chinese imperialism and systemic oppression of minority groups based on race/heritage.
GH, for some reason, seems to disagree with that, simply because Chinese people aren't white.
|
On January 24 2023 23:58 smille wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2023 23:14 KwarK wrote:On January 24 2023 17:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 24 2023 16:28 Acrofales wrote:
Are Chinese not being Raycist in China?
The short answer is: no. There's a lot of potential longer answers, but the simplest one is: No, they can't be, because they aren't white. A slightly more complicated longer answer is: White supremacy, US hegemony, and European colonialism are inextricable from raycism in a way that can't be equated in China. That isn't to say racial prejudices don't exist in China, but there's no Chinese analog for stuff like Blanqueamiento in North Korea or whatever. Honestly I find it kinda racist that you think Europe’s brief foray into imperialism in the last few hundred years is somehow inaccessible to China, an empire thousands of years old. Whites just aren’t that special, we’re not genetically better at colonialism. We did it recently and in the place that you live but that doesn’t mean that the Chinese didn’t and couldn’t do it. It’s odd that you can’t imagine a world in which the Chinese might wield the same cultural and racial supremacy, even within China. Like they’re noble savages that can’t attain the higher tech tree. Presumably you dismiss all the experience of black people experiencing systemic, structural, state sanctioned racism in China. You’ll correct them and let them know that it couldn’t have been racism. The question was, if Chinese could be ra ycists. After a quick search, I couldn’t find anything useful regarding that term and I started wondering why everybody started throwing around with it.
It is a made up term by GreenHorizons, but he introduced it years ago so regulars of this thread are familiar with it.
|
On January 25 2023 00:15 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2023 23:58 smille wrote:On January 24 2023 23:14 KwarK wrote:On January 24 2023 17:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 24 2023 16:28 Acrofales wrote:
Are Chinese not being Raycist in China?
The short answer is: no. There's a lot of potential longer answers, but the simplest one is: No, they can't be, because they aren't white. A slightly more complicated longer answer is: White supremacy, US hegemony, and European colonialism are inextricable from raycism in a way that can't be equated in China. That isn't to say racial prejudices don't exist in China, but there's no Chinese analog for stuff like Blanqueamiento in North Korea or whatever. Honestly I find it kinda racist that you think Europe’s brief foray into imperialism in the last few hundred years is somehow inaccessible to China, an empire thousands of years old. Whites just aren’t that special, we’re not genetically better at colonialism. We did it recently and in the place that you live but that doesn’t mean that the Chinese didn’t and couldn’t do it. It’s odd that you can’t imagine a world in which the Chinese might wield the same cultural and racial supremacy, even within China. Like they’re noble savages that can’t attain the higher tech tree. Presumably you dismiss all the experience of black people experiencing systemic, structural, state sanctioned racism in China. You’ll correct them and let them know that it couldn’t have been racism. The question was, if Chinese could be ra ycists. After a quick search, I couldn’t find anything useful regarding that term and I started wondering why everybody started throwing around with it. It is a made up term by GreenHorizons, but he introduced it years ago so some regulars of this thread are familiar with it.
lol, thank you. Urban Dictionary simply couldn’t help me this time...
|
Raycism =\= racism. GH came up with the former word to delineate between his take on the word “racism” in contrast to the more general definition of the word “racism”, by request from TL mods. It’s pointless to argue with GH on how “raycism” should be defined; it’s his term to express his ideas.
That being said, I believe GH is arguing that “raycism” should replace “racism”, so that’s where any arguments should be centered.
Personally, my main issue is that the word “racism” seems too general to suddenly hijack to become the race-exclusive “raycism” GH is referring to. It seems easier for everyone involved to leave “racism” as is and use a different term for “raycism”; exactly what’s been happening here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
