Gormur wrote:I know what a refugee is and I say it's illegal to be one. Your opinion is yours.
Then you don't
know because the definition of "refugee" is a legal definition under international law
. So saying "it's illegal to be a refugee" makes exactly as much sense as saying "it's illegal to be a citizen of the USA". It's self-contradictory.
Maybe you just don't know what the terms "legal" and "illegal" actually mean?
Gormur wrote:As to the other comments they're based on what you said as you implied that race was involved
No, they aren't. As I said, there is no reasonable chain of a interpretation that gets you from what I said to what you say I said. The only path that gets you there is some kind of free association.
Gormur wrote:That's all right. I don't need an answer from you. I just wanted to know where racism came from, but if you don't know that's fine
Okay, so that's your question? I couldn't give you an answer before because you never actually formulated a question.
It's not hard to figure out where racism comes from. Like other "isms", it's a method for one social group to hog resources instead of sharing them out equally.
First, you divide society into an "in" group and an "out" group based on some arbitrary criteria. Race is a common choice because it's based (sometimes very loosely) on inherited physical characteristics which makes it easier to tell who belongs to which group. But it can also be something more nebulous like "caste" or "legal status".
Next, you make up stories to justify why the dominant group is treated as superior to the others. In the distant past, we relied on legends. Starting in about the 18th century or thereabouts, "scientific racism" started to take shape. These were pseudoscientific arguments for the superiority of the "white race" over the other "races" of the world.
Now that you have your justification, you create laws that benefit the "dominant race" in every area--education, health care, policing, government, etc. This keeps the "subordinate races" mired in poverty and neutralises the threat they pose to the racist order. Usually, some sort of genocide is involved. It's not always indiscriminate slaughter; denying access to food, clean water, proper health care, etc. will also lead to excess deaths and keep the population down.
If you look at the history of the USA, you will find all of these stages. We're now in a "post-racial" stage. In theory, scientific racism has been widely discredited, but you still see arguments based on it pop up regularly. Usually they're framed as "cultural" arguments instead of racial ones. It's not that inner-city Blacks (or Roma or Rohingya or Muslims or Dalits--the groups involved vary according to country, but the arguments are largely the same) are racially
inferior but they have a culture
which makes them inferior--more violent, less educated, less hard-working, etc. etc. This justifies their lack of success under a capitalist system, and hence their continued poverty and disenfranchisement.
You've been raised in this culture and accepted these arguments as a neutral explanation of why the world is as it is. But they aren't. They exist to justify and perpetuate a racist status quo.
Did that answer you question finally?
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons