Racism

[Prowler]

What is being white?

I've always assumed it was being of European ancestry or primarily so. And I think that's the most commonly accepted definition? If you go to any European country and ask the local majority if they consider themselves White they'll say so. Seems illogical to consider a German white but not a Serbian, for example. It's obvious they're both people of European stock/genetics. If a Serbian isn't white what is he? He's obviously not Black, Arabic, East Asian, Indian, Amerindian or Pacific Islander. And all "races" have variations in skin tone and complexion among them. If an Indonesian and a Japanese are both Asian and a Kenyan and a Nigerian are both black then ofc a Serbian and a German can both be white even if they look different from each other on average.

As for Europeans with non-European ancestry in them, if you have like a Chinese grandfather or something but the rest of your family is, let's say, Austrian, I don't think people care much and will mostly likely see you as white. Europe is different from USA, Brazil and other former colonial nations in this regard. We're not as strict when it comes to labelling people.

Black people are people of sub-Saharan African ancestry or primarily so. A mixed black and white person like Obama to me is what we call a mulato here. Although you could argue that society in general is more likely to view a person like Obama or Thierry Henry as more black than white due to how dominant the sub-Saharan features are and how it shows on their appearance.

Btw, why did people stop calling Asians yellow? It's fine to call Europeans white and Sub-Saharan Africans black, but calling Asians yellow seems to be a no-no.

Gypsies are not considered white in Europe btw. People don't view them as a "race" per se, though. They view them more as an ethnic group. And not all Gypsies look the same. You can be a Gypsy that looks as European as everyone else but you're still a Gypsy.

I'd say that traditionally different parts of the West also had somewhat different understandings of race, which has changed due to the US exporting a lot if its racial categories and stereotypes along with other aspects of its culture.

Yes, like I've said, it's kind of annoying how white Americans basically have made themselves the "standard white people". As if their culture is the only valid one in the world

[vijayjohn]

Nah, I think Saim's right. "White" is more complicated than I made it out to be.

If a Serbian isn't white what is he? He's obviously not Black, Arabic, East Asian, Indian, Amerindian or Pacific Islander.

What if the Serbian is of mixed heritage?

As for Europeans with non-European ancestry in them, if you have like a Chinese grandfather or something but the rest of your family is, let's say, Austrian, I don't think people care much and will mostly likely see you as white. Europe is different from USA, Brazil and other former colonial nations in this regard. We're not as strict when it comes to labelling people.

I don't think most Americans would necessarily see your example any differently, either. But I'm sure you're right that there are differences. You may also be right about strictness; I'm not sure.

Black people are people of sub-Saharan African ancestry or primarily so. A mixed black and white person like Obama to me is what we call a mulato here.

Mulatto in English, though this seems to be used a lot less now than it used to be in the US at least

Although you could argue that society in general is more likely to view a person like Obama or Thierry Henry as more black than white due to how dominant the sub-Saharan features are and how it shows on their appearance.

Wait, is Thierry Henry of mixed race or something? All I can see about his heritage is that his parents are both from the French Antilles. Also goddamn he looks hot in a jersey

Btw, why did people stop calling Asians yellow? It's fine to call Europeans white and Sub-Saharan Africans black, but calling Asians yellow seems to be a no-no.

Because no Asians call themselves that and even "Asian" doesn't make much sense as a demonym?

Gypsies are not considered white in Europe btw. People don't view them as a "race" per se, though. They view them more as an ethnic group. And not all Gypsies look the same. You can be a Gypsy that looks as European as everyone else but you're still a Gypsy.

So does that mean Europeans think white people are part of a race but Roma aren't?

[md0]

If a Serbian isn't white what is he? He's obviously not Black, Arabic, East Asian, Indian, Amerindian or Pacific Islander.

You are still trying to force a theoretical model into a reality that doesn't lend itself to it. They don't have to be any.

A Serbian may be White... when they go to the US or the UK and live there. While in Serbia, I'd bet their religious background (even if non-practising) is probably a better predictor of their level of privilege in the societal dynamics of Serbia.

Are you sure about that? These people speak Romanian and don't seem to identify with a religion different from the surrounding population, but they're not considered Romanian, and Romania is also part of the Balkans.

Economic status is also relevant, for one. It's not the only case. Eg I brought up eastern Europeans in Cyprus. Common people are living in conditions approaching forced labour. But Russian oligarchs are highly respected here.
For another, I think the pervasive discrimination against the Roma people in Europe is remarkably... marked. It's an outlier for a model that generally makes good predictions about this region. The scientific racism model would maybe capture this specific instance, and miss almost all others.

[Antea]

I don’t understand the term of “races”. For me is just a rude word and concept to differentiate people (when there’s no difference) in order to legitimate a group for having more privileges or whatever people want. I don’t see people as “white” or “black”, because there are a lot of mixed colours, and not only these. And then what? Do they have to make a gradation of colours? It’s absurd.

For me is more important the educational background of the person, or where did they grow up or what nationality do they have, what language do they speak, or even with which group do they identify more (because after all, a person is who he wants to be, and not what others want them to be). Possibly the people from a country have more points in common between them, in terms of culture, independently of their physical features.

[Prowler]

I was obviously referring to Serbians without any non-European ancestry when I made that comparison with Germans...

I was told Thierry Henry was a mulato by someone before. Tbh I'm not sure now. Never bothered to look it up, but it wouldn't surprise me. He looks like he could have a white parent or grandparent.

A person I was very surprised to find out was Algerian or part-Algerian was Zinedine Zidane many years ago. I thought he was 100% French. He looks European as hell and wouldn't stand out in a crowd at all.

Not sure. With Gypsies it's an odd case. People don't view them as a race in the same sense as they view whites and blacks. I guess they just view them as part of a South Asian ancestry since that's where they first originated' And like Iv'e said, some Gypsies can actually look like any other white person. They don't all look the same. Hell, it's very possible I might see Gypsies everyday that I have no clue about their background... because those are the ones who don't follow the traditions or lifestyle that we associate with Gypsies, and if they are of mixed ancestry or don't look like most Gypsies do then it's even harder to know unless they tell you.

Perhaps there's some Europeans out there with Gypsy ancestry from 200 years ago but they have no clue... and they might hate Gypsies themselves!

If a Serbian isn't white what is he? He's obviously not Black, Arabic, East Asian, Indian, Amerindian or Pacific Islander.

You are still trying to force a theoretical model into a reality that doesn't lend itself to it. They don't have to be any.

A Serbian may be White... when they go to the US or the UK and live there. While in Serbia, I'd bet their religious background (even if non-practising) is probably a better predictor of their level of privilege in the societal dynamics of Serbia.

Same applies to every European.

Well ofc what Serbians should care primarily about is their culture and religion, but we began talking about "racial" definitions, so that's why we're having this conversation.

I don’t understand the term of “races”. For me is just a rude word and concept to differentiate people (when there’s no difference) in order to legitimate a group for having more privileges or whatever people want. I don’t see people as “white” or “black”, because there are a lot of mixed colours, and not only these. And then what? Do they have to make a gradation of colours? It’s absurd.

For me is more important the educational background of the person, or where did they grow up or what nationality do they have, what language do they speak, or even with which group do they identify more (because after all, a person is who he wants to be, and not what others want them to be). Possibly the people from a country have more points in common between them, in terms of culture, independently of their physical features.

Obviously. You're right, but you know that mankind as a whole still has issues with this. It will take a while for it to disappear.

[md0]

Same applies to every European.

I think in the UK at least, the scientific racism model applies more. They discuss inequalities across colour lines etc.
It's probably what Saim said, that the ethnicity-based racial categories of Europe started being replaced by the "racialist" model, and here on the east we haven't adopted it yet (with the exception of our US educated returnees who apply the theory they were taught in the US without the necessary adaptations).

but we began talking about "racial" definitions, so that's why we're having this conversation.

I get it. Part of my point is that societies 'racialise' different characteristics. In the west, what was racialised is an often-inconsistent grouping of different ranges of phenotypes.

Perhaps there's some Europeans out there with Gypsy ancestry from 200 years ago but they have no clue... and they might hate Gypsies themselves!

That's the thing, genetics-based racism isn't actually based on actual genetics. It's a construct influenced by phenotype, but for which no proof of genetic make-up is required (at least nowadays, Nazi Germany tried to be more "scientific" about it).
So yes, what you say is entirely consistent. It's like those US TV shows where they invite racists and give them DNA tests to show that they are 20% Black for example. That wouldn't take away their white privilege, since they are still seen as white (and maybe it wouldn't even affect the person's views on race).

[vijayjohn]

I need to say something about this somewhere, and this thread seems like it's as good a place as any.

A bunch of cis white men on a certain other forum I'm part of keep making apologies for racism (and sexism and transphobia) to me. I feel increasingly unsafe in such a space, and their attitude makes me feel really baffled and angry. I don't even know whether I'm really allowed to stay there or they've just been pretending I am. Or is it that I'm allowed to stay only if I keep my mouth shut about issues that matter more to me than to them on a personal level? I don't know what to do.

[Saim]

It's obvious they're both people of European stock/genetics.

Are you sure that such a thing exists? What is so magical about the Urals or the Bosphorus that fundamentally changes people's genetic makeup or phenotype?

Do you think Icelanders and Maltese people are genetically and phenotypically close? What about Tatars and Irish people?

Black people are people of sub-Saharan African ancestry or primarily so.

The point is that this is a completely arbitrary category. Why is the Sahara the primary dividing line? Sub-saharan Africans are much more genetically diverse than other human populations, so why shoehorn them all into a single "race"? They also present a large amount of phenotypic variation.

Btw, why did people stop calling Asians yellow? It's fine to call Europeans white and Sub-Saharan Africans black, but calling Asians yellow seems to be a no-no.

It's a quirk of historical development (of how these words have been used, see for example "yellow peril"). Why is the term "Negro" now seen as offensive in English, even though it comes from a Romance root that means the same thing as "black"?

[mōdgethanc]

I need to say something about this somewhere, and this thread seems like it's as good a place as any.

A bunch of cis white men on a certain other forum I'm part of keep making apologies for racism (and sexism and transphobia) to me. I feel increasingly unsafe in such a space, and their attitude makes me feel really baffled and angry. I don't even know whether I'm really allowed to stay there or they've just been pretending I am. Or is it that I'm allowed to stay only if I keep my mouth shut about issues that matter more to me than to them on a personal level? I don't know what to do.

Yep, that sounds like Reddit to me.

[vijayjohn]

I need to say something about this somewhere, and this thread seems like it's as good a place as any.

A bunch of cis white men on a certain other forum I'm part of keep making apologies for racism (and sexism and transphobia) to me. I feel increasingly unsafe in such a space, and their attitude makes me feel really baffled and angry. I don't even know whether I'm really allowed to stay there or they've just been pretending I am. Or is it that I'm allowed to stay only if I keep my mouth shut about issues that matter more to me than to them on a personal level? I don't know what to do.

Yep, that sounds like Reddit to me.

I wish I could say it was. I haven't touched Reddit in months.

[Saim]

I need to say something about this somewhere, and this thread seems like it's as good a place as any.

A bunch of cis white men on a certain other forum I'm part of keep making apologies for racism (and sexism and transphobia) to me. I feel increasingly unsafe in such a space, and their attitude makes me feel really baffled and angry. I don't even know whether I'm really allowed to stay there or they've just been pretending I am.

Could I ask what forum this is? What kind of stuff were they saying?

Honestly if you don't feel comfortable there, there's no shame in leaving. I've personally stopped contributing to the main Catalan-speaking forum because the mods there refuse to ban the infestation of pseudo-Catalanist neo-Nazis there (most of the users aren't like that, but these people obsessively open threads about DAH EBUL MUSLIMS every day so it gets annoying).

Or is it that I'm allowed to stay only if I keep my mouth shut about issues that matter more to me than to them on a personal level? I don't know what to do.

Have they threatened to ban you, mocked you, or ganged up on you in any way? If not, they may not intend to drive you off the forum or shut you up, they just think they're expressing their opinions. Then again I haven't seen the threads so I don't know.

[Yasna]

It's funny because this reminds me of something... ever notice how when it comes to interracial couples black man and white woman is a lot more common than the other way around? Just like it seems to be the case for white man and asian woman being more common than the other way around. I have no stats to prove this, but I'm not the only one that has observed this.

Ok, obviously, two people of completely different ethnic backgrounds can love each other dearly, not arguing that nor am I doubting the people involved in such relationships love each other; but I wonder why this happens. I wonder if the media or biases and other factors might sub-consciously influence this

First of all, consider height. In all the major cultures of the world, relationships where the man is taller than the woman are strongly preferred. Now juxtapose the normal distributions of height for (East) Asian men and white/black women. A large chunk of the distributions will overlap, indicating that these potential couples are very unlikely. The picture gets even worse when you consider how even relationships where the man is only slightly taller than the woman are not preferred.

Then do something similar (with caveats) for body types, and the picture looks even worse.

Then consider the Asian preference for light-colored skin (which goes back to ancient times).

That should get you pretty close to the finishing line, and stereotypes will get you the rest of the way.

[linguoboy]

First of all, consider height. In all the major cultures of the world, relationships where the man is taller than the woman are strongly preferred.

Good point. This is such a non-issue in gay relationships that it didn't even occur to me to consider it.
#mensofragile

[Lur]

I like tall girls. But my opinion doesn't count as heterosexual and also I'm tall myself. However, I like straight people who prefer tall girls.

[Lur]

¡
Are you sure that such a thing exists? What is so magical about the Urals or the Bosphorus that fundamentally changes people's genetic makeup or phenotype?

Yes, Europeans as descendants of Bronze Age European populations. Which doesn't mean "looking white" to modern people, in fact, because they had a ton more of frequency of both very dark skin and blue eyes, compared to today.

And I've been saying the thing about subsaharan Africa for ages. I that is many different groups of people, and if a small group there has more genetic diversity than all of Asia, then yes, we can define populations outside of that as clearly European or whatever you're interested in.

Nothing "fundamentally changes" anywhere, you're just looking at a migration, a group of migrations or a population according a selected geography.

I think there were European populations previous to that one but apparently there are not descendants of those.

[Varislintu]

First of all, consider height. In all the major cultures of the world, relationships where the man is taller than the woman are strongly preferred. Now juxtapose the normal distributions of height for (East) Asian men and white/black women. A large chunk of the distributions will overlap, indicating that these potential couples are very unlikely. The picture gets even worse when you consider how even relationships where the man is only slightly taller than the woman are not preferred.

Then do something similar (with caveats) for body types, and the picture looks even worse.

Then consider the Asian preference for light-colored skin (which goes back to ancient times).

That should get you pretty close to the finishing line, and stereotypes will get you the rest of the way.

Yeah, it's a pretty pervasive attitude, that men need to be tall(er). I'm currently interested in the ex-scientology community and their experiences in scientology, and while these people have every right to be angry, very angry, I dislike how pervasive it is among them online to make fun of David Miscavige's short stature. They call him all manner of names that refer to his height, including midget. Constantly. I don't care about Miscavige's feelings an iota, but short men are a group that are put at disadvantage all their life due to their height in our world, and I hate the body-shaming aspect of that name-calling. I don't think I've ever seen anyone in that community say "hey, enough of the short-shaming", either.

And, obviously if Miscavige was a woman his height would not be made fun of.

[linguoboy]

Yeah, it's a pretty pervasive attitude, that men need to be tall(er).

Not to derail us too much, but the Scottish comic Fern Brady, who I only recently discovered, has an interesting bit about this. It begins at about 2:30: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1V3cjREzBf8

[vijayjohn]

Could I ask what forum this is?

The Zompist Bulletin Board (ZBB). To be fair, the current mods aren't the ones who have this issue, but the fact that a lot of their users do is obviously a problem for them as well as for me.

What kind of stuff were they saying?

Well, it all started with this about two years ago, when there was a really racist mod on that forum (and he's also said similarly sexist and transphobic things before and been criticized for saying them, though at least then, the relevant threads didn't have to be locked down). Recently, he also scolded the whole forum just because they didn't agree with him on a certain issue. Now the original board has technical issues, so it's moved to a different URL. However, not everyone has moved there, including said mod.

Three days ago, people started saying they missed this mod, and one proposed trying to lure him over. I said, "Please don't." They didn't understand why, so I started explaining: he's racist, sexist, etc. (also, I didn't say this, but giving his willingness to scold us all, he probably doesn't even want to move there anyway!). Then a bunch of people started jumping on me for saying that, so I demonstrated it with examples, but people kept making apologies for his behavior. Even the forum admin/boardlord/Zompist himself told me to stop, so I did, but other people didn't yet. They've been saying things like he's educated about issues such as XYZ and therefore we should just ignore all his bigotry. They don't seem to understand that none of that makes his bigotry any more excusable. I would go ahead and say that, but at this point, I'm not even sure I'm allowed to.

It would be one thing if the people who jumped on me were idiots, but they're not; they're legitimately smart people who otherwise seem pretty innocuous, and not just on that forum (one of them is even on this forum). So now I don't know where that leaves me. I feel I'm in an impossible situation, so much so that I would actually prefer it if they just said, "Non-white people aren't allowed here" because at least then I'd know where I stood. Instead, I don't know whether:

a) the users really don't want me there but are just pretending I'm allowed there so they don't look racist and because they're not mods,
b) they only want me there if I shut up about any racial issues and/or any issues where we happen to disagree,
c) they're okay with me disagreeing with them on some of these issues but not others (in which case, which issues are those exactly?),
d) they're okay with me disagreeing with them but not calling out specific users of the forum,
e) they're even okay with me calling out specific users of the forum but not with me using the specific words "racism," "sexism," or "transphobia" (so then what words are okay? Is saying "bigotry" okay? Is saying "discrimination" okay?),
f) they don't understand the concept that a person's positive aspects don't somehow make their bigotry any less hurtful and aren't willing to talk about it,
g) they don't understand the concept that a person's positive aspects don't somehow make their bigotry any less hurtful but are willing to talk about it,
h) they do know that a person's positive aspects don't somehow make their bigotry any less hurtful and are just lying to me so I'll shut up, or
i) there's something else going on.

Honestly if you don't feel comfortable there, there's no shame in leaving.

I know, but it isn't all that easy for me to leave because I have been there for over two years, and they have a policy of not deleting accounts just because people are leaving.

[Prowler]

Are you sure that such a thing exists? What is so magical about the Urals or the Bosphorus that fundamentally changes people's genetic makeup or phenotype?

Do you think Icelanders and Maltese people are genetically and phenotypically close? What about Tatars and Irish people?

They're most likely genetically close to each other than either of them are to Nigerians, Japanese people or Native Americans, I'd wager.

The point is that this is a completely arbitrary category. Why is the Sahara the primary dividing line? Sub-saharan Africans are much more genetically diverse than other human populations, so why shoehorn them all into a single "race"? They also present a large amount of phenotypic variation.

Dunno. I did not make the "rules". You gotta ask Europeans why they drew such lines during the colonial era.

And now we're in the current situation. You'll have people of European ancestry calling themselves white and people of Sub-Saharan African ancestry calling themselves black.

It's funny because this reminds me of something... ever notice how when it comes to interracial couples black man and white woman is a lot more common than the other way around? Just like it seems to be the case for white man and asian woman being more common than the other way around. I have no stats to prove this, but I'm not the only one that has observed this.

Ok, obviously, two people of completely different ethnic backgrounds can love each other dearly, not arguing that nor am I doubting the people involved in such relationships love each other; but I wonder why this happens. I wonder if the media or biases and other factors might sub-consciously influence this

First of all, consider height. In all the major cultures of the world, relationships where the man is taller than the woman are strongly preferred. Now juxtapose the normal distributions of height for (East) Asian men and white/black women. A large chunk of the distributions will overlap, indicating that these potential couples are very unlikely. The picture gets even worse when you consider how even relationships where the man is only slightly taller than the woman are not preferred.

Then do something similar (with caveats) for body types, and the picture looks even worse.

Then consider the Asian preference for light-colored skin (which goes back to ancient times).

That should get you pretty close to the finishing line, and stereotypes will get you the rest of the way.

Good point. Also, the physical strength. I mean, there's plenty of skinny and fat black men around but many of them are very jacked/muscular. More than Asian guys on average from my observation.

But height preference is a bit overrated, tbh. I am about 1,83m which is actually on the tall side for a guy in my country and yet I can't say it has particularly helped me. Ofc I'm just one guy and everyone has a different experience, but if I go outside I'll see a lot of different couples, including many where both parties are practically of the same height, with the guy being just a bit taller than his gf. And in many cases, the woman is practically the same height as her male partner. Also, keep in mind many women are quite short, as in 1,60m, so a man who is like 1,68m won't look that short to a 1,55m woman.

I think height is more of a hindrance for shorter guys that find themselves being shorter than a ton of women or most of them. As in if you're a guy under 1,70m I can see it being detrimental to your dating life; but a guy 1,75m and above? Not really. You'll have some women taller than 1,70m here but most are in the 1,60m-1,68m range.

I know a lot of guys who are 1,77m and under and it doesn't seem to hold them down. Women generally might prefer taller men, but we all know height isn't something you can control, so it's easy to overlook that "flaw" in a person. Just like people usually don't discriminate against people who wear glasses.

I think being athletic or in good shape is more important than height per se. Being tall or on the tall side doesn't get you very far if you're ugly or plain looking and/or if you're fat or very skinny and lanky with bad posture. Especially not when you're young. Younger people are more shallow and focus more on looks than older people who care more about personality and stability when it comes to getting a partner.

Also, a lot of younger Asian guys are of normal stature and even on the tall side nowadays. People from the Philippines might be very short on average, but many younger Chinese, Japanese and Koreans are 1,75m and above.

Oh, and for the record, I've always noticed a strange disparity in height among black people. Ofc they have a ton of average sized people... but I've noticed a higher amount of very short and also very tall people among them. It's like, I see almost as many quite short black people as I see massive ones. Most black guys seem to be either 1,70m and shorter or 1,87m and taller. I guess that's the genetic variety of Africa coming into play there...

[Yasna]

Sargon of Akkad has shown support for the EDL, used jihadwatch as a source for his Muslim-baiting (rape gangs, terrorism, blahblahblah) and blames "incel" mass murderers on feminism while also openly sympathising with them.

I just ran across this video, which illustrates quite well where lines are drawn between classical liberals like Sargon and the radical right (in this case a "white advocate"). It's all pretty interesting so you can just jump around the video to get a taste.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLUZ4uJlkvQ