Racism

[Gormur]

What's the value in criminal behavior?

I don't understand what you're asking.

Sure we can say slavery is racist but then African countries and Ireland would have racism then, and we can't have that muddying up our pristine histories, can we?

Slavery isn't inherently racist. Old World slavery generally wasn't, because people of any race could be enslaved and slavery wasn't always a condition that could be passed on from parent to child. New World slavery was racist because only particular races were enslaved and their children were born into it.

History is complicated, but this is pretty straightforward. Anyone who tells you the Irish came here as "slaves" is lying.

Sorry but I don't agree with you here
You condone criminals' behavior (refugees etc) because they're of color and you don't recognize slavery because it's on a certain continent. There are still slaves in Côte d'Ivoire

I think you're just trying to ruffle feathers, but you won't ruffle mine because I don't fucking care

My own family had Irish slaves. You might know them as the Vikings, kings of England, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. That doesn't make me a racist

I see what racism is. It's a made up history for people who don't have one and want to hate others

Let's not forget England started or rather re-started Western slavery, so go ahead and blame England I guess. I just don't understand where all the hate comes from. Maybe you can tell me that

[linguoboy]

You condone criminals' behavior (refugees etc)

Refugees are not criminals. In fact, countries have a legal obligation to accept and protect them.

If you're unclear about what a "refugee" is (and it seems like you are), here's a link the FAQ from the United Nations High Commission on Refugees: https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/news/latest/2016/3/56e95c676/refugees-migrants-frequently-asked-questions-faqs.html. The USA is a signatory to the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, which accepts the definition given in the 1951 convention and expands it.

because they're of color and you don't recognize slavery because it's on a certain continent.

You literally can't get that interpretation from anything I wrote. It's impossible. This is just something you made up.

My own family had Irish slaves. You might know them as the Vikings, kings of England, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. That doesn't make me a racist

And they brought those slaves with them to the USA?

Again, please try to read what I've actually written and respond to that, not to something you've made up based on a misinterpretation.

Let's not forget England started or rather re-started Western slavery, so go ahead and blame England I guess. I just don't understand where all the hate comes from. Maybe you can tell me that

I'm not particularly interested in how it started; I'm interested in how its legacy persists and what we can do about it.

You keep bringing up "hate" and I'm really not sure what you're referring to. If you could more specific, maybe I could actually give you an answer.

[Gormur]

I know what a refugee is and I say it's illegal to be one. Your opinion is yours. As to the other comments they're based on what you said as you implied that race was involved; you know, like when you imply something without saying it on a topic about racism

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

You know, where things come from is important to me. That helps me to understand them

[linguoboy]

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?

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.

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?

[Gormur]

Actually, I haven't a clue what you're talking about. Caste system isn't racism, but you're free to think it is I suppose. I know why you think that and it seems dumb to me because it isn't really important; you know like skin color is important to somebody

You can call people bigots or racists. There's no difference to me. I guess you can change words and be more specific but then I will disagree because you're then talking about individuals in politics, which is trivial in my view

I'm not trying to discredit your view. You may be right, but I still politely disagree because it doesn't have any meaning to me

Cheers

[linguoboy]

Actually, I haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Believe me, I know. It's almost as if you have a vested interested in not understanding it.

Caste system isn't racism, but you're free to think it is I suppose.

Again, I didn't say it was. I clearly listed it as one of the other forms of discrimination (which I called "isms") that works similarly to how racism does. I didn't say it was a form of racism.

I know why you think that and it seems dumb to me because it isn't really important; you know like skin color is important to somebody

You're completely missing the point. The source of the distinction isn't important. That's why I gave you other examples, like caste. The important thing--and this is a matter of life and death--is that this distinction is used to restrict access to power and resources for a significant number of people.

Bigotry is just a low-level interpersonal manifestation of racism. The important thing to understand about racism--the thing you are trying hard as hell not to understand, because it might mean actually having to change the way you live your life--is that you can benefit from it and perpetuate it without any bigotry or racist intent on your part. It's like [NB: "like" does not mean "the same as"] sexism or xenophobia in that respect.

At least I managed to show you the error of your ways on refugees. That's something.

[Gormur]

I understand your points but I still see racism as a way to elevate bigotry to a social level that seems rather offensive and unnecessary

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you said. You obviously are well read on the subject

[linguoboy]

I understand your points but I still see racism as a way to elevate bigotry to a social level that seems rather offensive and unnecessary

You don't understand my points if you thinking I'm arguing in favour of the existence of racism.

You told me you didn't understand where it came from and I explained that. It is offensive and unnecessary, but because there are a lot of people in positions of power who benefit from it (not least among them the current POTUS and his administration) it's not going to go away on its own. To get rid of it, you first have to recognise why it exists (or that it exists at all, which lots of white people would rather not be reminded of). Then you have to change your behaviour and demand that others change theirs.

[Gormur]

Make no mistake, I don't know a whole lot but I'm definitely not assuming anything here. If anything be misunderstood on my end it happens when trying to understand racism by itself, but I can't help being confused by a kind of assumption hiatus

Definitely I would like to understand this subject but as of right now I don't

[Yasna]

And to think, I used to believe that NYT narratives about how the world works were simply the conclusions that unbiased, intelligent people come to when they look at the data and facts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ1QZDpukv4

[vijayjohn]

Um okay whatever. Anyway, I now ignore that server I was on and ended up starting my own Discord server with two other POC and one white guy so we can support each other without having to deal with all those dumbass white people who clearly don't actually want us around in the first place but are too cowardly to come out and say so because oh my God! They could be called RACIST! That's like the worst thing in the world! Even though they openly call us racist if we say they're racist!

[Gormur]

I've been reading about Holocaust denial and I still don't think racism is real

These were war crimes committed against an ethnoreligious group. I say that because ashkenazim can be white or they can look Middle Eastern. The only way to tell the difference was by labeling them

So I think at least according to that example, racism isn't real but it's hatred of religion and culture

Whenever I hear that was a racist act it makes me ignore the rest of the dialog since that's like a bandaid for the aggressors to use in defending their bigotry. Why then would I even try to acknowledge their beliefs?

I look forward to your answer

[linguoboy]

ISo I think at least according to that example, racism isn't real but it's hatred of religion and culture

Except they also persecuted and murdered people who were not religiously or culturally Jewish but just happened to have ancestors who were. (One "Jewish" grandparent was enough to get you sent to the camps.)

That's why it's considered "racism". The Nazis invented a racial group according to ethnoreligious descent and then persecuted people on the basis of it.

[Gormur]

ISo I think at least according to that example, racism isn't real but it's hatred of religion and culture

Except they also persecuted and murdered people who were not religiously or culturally Jewish but just happened to have ancestors who were. (One "Jewish" grandparent was enough to get you sent to the camps.)

That's why it's considered "racism". The Nazis invented a racial group according to ethnoreligious descent and then persecuted people on the basis of it.

Yes I know they, Nazis persecuted other groups, even non-Jews

My question is where's the proof of racism? One can invent races and all sorts of things but by itself the idea of racism doesn't stand by itself. It has to have a motivation or ideology behind it, much like terrorism does

Maybe I'm wrong

[linguoboy]

My question is where's the proof of racism?

My question is: What would you consider proof?

[Gormur]

My question is where's the proof of racism?

My question is: What would you consider proof?

Exactly. There's no proof that I've found at least of a conspiracy, so I think the whole thing is an excuse to call a tragedy racist

In other words, people being murdered is a crime but racism isn't. That's the only way I can understand Holocaust denial. It's calling someone a racist; someone who thinks it's okay to kill people who they don't agree with

I hope that's clear enough

[linguoboy]

My question is where's the proof of racism?

My question is: What would you consider proof?

Exactly. There's no proof that I've found at least of a conspiracy, so I think the whole thing is an excuse to call a tragedy racist

There doesn't need to be a "conspiracy". The Nazis were completely upfront about their racism. It was a major component of their political appeal, in the same way that Trump's is: Look, here are the evil people who are responsible for your misery. Vote for me and I will save you from them!

In other words, people being murdered is a crime but racism isn't. That's the only way I can understand Holocaust denial. It's calling someone a racist; someone who thinks it's okay to kill people who they don't agree with

I hope that's clear enough

It's as clear as anything you've written, which is to say it doesn't make a lick of sense.

[Gormur]

My question is where's the proof of racism?

My question is: What would you consider proof?

Exactly. There's no proof that I've found at least of a conspiracy, so I think the whole thing is an excuse to call a tragedy racist

There doesn't need to be a "conspiracy". The Nazis were completely upfront about their racism. It was a major component of their political appeal, in the same way that Trump's is: Look, here are the evil people who are responsible for your misery. Vote for me and I will save you from them!

In other words, people being murdered is a crime but racism isn't. That's the only way I can understand Holocaust denial. It's calling someone a racist; someone who thinks it's okay to kill people who they don't agree with

I hope that's clear enough

It's as clear as anything you've written, which is to say it doesn't make a lick of sense.

No, it's like saying, hey these guys are bad. They're racists. Then turning around and explaining that that's why they did this or that, making it look like it's okay because it suddenly makes sense even though it's criminal

I'm not saying that it makes sense to me, it doesn't! It makes me feel weird thinking about how these people feel about death, violence and justifying it with war and racism. It's all a lie to me

Do you get it now? How do I separate war from racism? Is racism integral to war? Am I not making sense?

I'm not a racist. That makes sense to me. Racism needs a motive in order to be active. To me, that means it doesn't exist; by itself

I don't know what else to say

[linguoboy]

I'm not a racist. That makes sense to me. Racism needs a motive in order to be active. To me, that means it doesn't exist; by itself

The motive is clear: to achieve and maintain power. What clearer motive could you wish for?

[Gormur]

I'm not a racist. That makes sense to me. Racism needs a motive in order to be active. To me, that means it doesn't exist; by itself

The motive is clear: to achieve and maintain power. What clearer motive could you wish for?

But what's the actual motive? I'm not saying motive as in the reason, but the motive as in the basis for racism, like its foundation

Like, okay, I'll cause a genocide and that'll be based on racism. As an example

How does racism affect others who aren't racist? How does one get outsiders to support racism even if they aren't racist?

Thanks