Moderator:Forum Administrators
linguoboy wrote:I used to feel that way, too, but the more closely you examine how systematic racism works, the harder it becomes to argue that they ultimate goal is to ensure that, regardless what happens, white people always end up on top. Whenever it looks like it might not turn out that way, we go and change the rules so it does.
White supremacy is commonly used to mean fringe beliefs like neo-Nazism or neo-Confederacy, but as an academic term it's sometimes used to mean any society where there is an informal racial hierarchy with whites on top. In this sense it's basically another word for structural racism. I hear this usage increasingly these days, probably to emphasize the continuity between the West's white supremacist history and its race relations today.vijayjohn wrote:What is this loose way in how "white supremacy" is used these days?
For me personally, very little. For broader discussions of racism, I think it's potentially confusing and disruptive to use the same term for societies like the present-day United States that we would use for the Confederacy, Apartheid-era South Africa, and Nazi Germany. I would rather call it "white superiority", but that will never catch on. So I'd just call it racism.vijayjohn wrote:So what difference does it make for you?
They're different in a lot of ways obviously, but they all had legally entrenched racial discrimination. That's what white supremacists like the alt-right want. The problem is that there is no clear point at which a society becomes racially supremacist, but more like a scale. For example, North Korea is a de facto ethnostate and this is promoted by government propaganda, but not official policy as far as I know. I named those societies above because they're unambiguous examples.vijayjohn wrote:Are the Confederacy, South Africa under apartheid, and Nazi Germany comparable? (And to what extent is South Africa not under apartheid even today?)
Yasna wrote:linguoboy wrote:I used to feel that way, too, but the more closely you examine how systematic racism works, the harder it becomes to argue that they ultimate goal is to ensure that, regardless what happens, white people always end up on top. Whenever it looks like it might not turn out that way, we go and change the rules so it does.
Oh, we're suggesting that successful races have nebulous, sinister designs to keep other races under their yoke? I want to try!
I used to feel that way, too, but the more closely you examine how systematic racism works, the harder it becomes to argue that their ultimate goal is to ensure that, regardless what happens, Jews always end up on top. Whenever it looks like it might not turn out that way, the Jews go and change the rules so it does.
Did I do it right?
Yasna wrote:Oh, we're suggesting that successful races have nebulous, sinister designs to keep other races under their yoke?
linguoboy wrote:The GOP has openly admitted in court documents that they are systematically disenfranchising Black voters in order to keep their candidates in power and that's all just a big joke to you?
I suspect there's no convincing you on this topic. You have too much invested in believing that your "success" is entirely due to your own efforts and has nothing at all to do with how your demographic characteristics align with those of the people who control access to power in this society.
Saim wrote:What's even funnier is that you're the one that watches YouTube channels that have been known to spread nazi conspiracy theories.
Yasna wrote:So why is it acceptable to treat white people as a monolithic entity with sinister designs?
mōdgethanc wrote:I can't speak for anyone else here but I imagine most here would agree that the problem with racism in current year is that it's not a grand design. Aside from a few open white supremacists, it's more like prejudices that most have but might not even be aware of. It was a lot easier to identify racism when the racists were wearing armbands and shouting that minorities need to go to the gas chamber. It's a lot different in a society which claims to be tolerant and multicultural and where white privilege means boring stuff like being statistically more likely to be approved for a loan. That's why it's so easy to ignore or claim it's not a problem. Trying to convince a skeptic that racism still exists is like arguing that global warming is real with someone who argues that it snowed yesterday.
Prowler wrote:I mean, a privilege would be like me getting a discount based on being of a certain age or something.
In Western societies, citizens of each country regardless of "race" have the same rights.
You'll tell me now that being a White heterossexual male is the best thing to be due to being the majority in those countries, and thus even if a minority is racist against you you and your group still outnumber minorities.
minorities also are not monoliths and many even argue against the idea of White privilege
Being better off than others for something you didn't earn is the definition of privilege.Prowler wrote:It seems a lot of people have different ideas of what is racist or not. So it gets confusing. And then there's the theories about systemic racism, such as White privilege. That term also is very debatable. I mean, a privilege would be like me getting a discount based on being of a certain age or something. Being more likely to be subjected to racism or distrust by the majority is more like getting your rights violated. In Western societies, citizens of each country regardless of "race" have the same rights. And even if they practice a different religion or are LGBT they still have better rights than in most non-Western countries. You'll tell me now that being a White heterossexual male is the best thing to be due to being the majority in those countries, and thus even if a minority is racist against you you and your group still outnumber minorities. Whether "privilege" is the right word to label such a thing or not it's hard to say.
No, Apartheid was a clear example of white supremacy. Privilege is too mild a term for it. Whites were objectively on top and it was fundamental to their society.Because minorities also are not monoliths and many even argue against the idea of White privilege or argue that they haven't suffered any terrible discrimination in their lives. And you can see lots of non-White people having good jobs in Western nations. "White privilege" as a label/term would have made sense for something like South Africa under Apartheid, since minorities factually had less rights than Whites did there.
I'm not sure if anyone believes that except maybe a few conspiracy theorists.I don't think there's a big lobby or group of powerful White people trying to "hold down" minorities in Western countries as a whole, though.
Sounds like a privilege to me.I mean, sure I'd rather be White in Germany, Russia or Italy than being a Arab or Black. Being White, racism would be less of a concern
Privilege is based on being the most dominant group, to my understanding. This isn't necessarily based on numbers though.I guess you could say it's a "majority privilege" type of thing? If I now went to South Africa, Japan or Saudi Arabia I could also possibly suffer from discrimination when it comes to entering nightclubs or renting an apartment. Japan is known for being a tough place for non-Japanese at times.
Saim wrote:I don't think white people are a monolithic entity. Some of my closest friends are whites.
Yasna wrote:Saim wrote:I don't think white people are a monolithic entity. Some of my closest friends are whites.
Is this a parody of "I'm not racist. I have a black friend"? I can't tell.
Return to “Politics and Religion”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests