Talking about race with white people

731 posts / 0 new
Last post
6079_Smith_W

I think it is a fair concern, and I am sure it does drive some people away, and I think it is good to bring it up. Thanks.

Although in the case you describe it is about people not being able to be allies because of who they are, I don't see it as that much different as other kinds of divisiveness on the left. I think there a problem with judging based on dogma, and in feeling one has to squeeze one's self into a dogma.

My point is that it really eclipses dealing with the problem and changing things for the better. It just turns it into team sports. On the other hand, not everyone is  going to like you or consider you an ally anyway, so why not just be honest about what you support and what you don't, and just leave the judgment and exclusion to them?

 

WWWTT

Ken Burch wrote:

It appears that you're giving examples of countries that are heavily armed and happen to be located in Asia.

The pertinence of that in a discussion about North American racism is hard to see, though.

Are you arguing that racism could be stopped in North America if indigenous people, black people, Muslims and Latinos were heavily armed?  Or that someone should sell those communities nuclear weapons?

If not, where are you going with this?

 


I should mention another very important war also related. As I mentioned earlier I'm of Portuguese parents so good old corporate western media can't hide this so easily from me. Angola and Mozambique among other smaller African countries were once part of colonialism Portugal. Soviet Union and other communist nations helped Mozambique and Angola fight for independence. As always US fascist racist pigs helped the Portuguese racist @$&" pigs continue fighting. Eventually the Portuguese military(or many officers) told the Portuguese fascist racist pigs enough of the f'n BS fighting and with the help of the pacifist Portuguese people's the carnation revolution came. Colonialism left such a bitter taste for the Portuguese they immediately even tried to give Macau back to the PRC!
If Nelson Mandela was alive, ask him if violence was required to end apartheid.
Now nuclear weapons may be a little much for the Wetung First Nations reserve. But don't be surprised if the solution may be losing through violence to end racism!

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Anything like that would have to be the idea of people in those communities.  It is very dangerous for people of European ancestry to be suggesting things like that:

A) We probably wouldn't be on the line ourselves in a situation where force might be used;

B) Even open discussion of such a thing on a public message board like this could be used as justification for violent tactics against communities of color by law enforcement or even military authorities.  It could get a lot of innocent people of color killed;

C) I'm not even sure if our forum rules allow for the actual advocacy of violence on the part of those not currently using it-It's one thing to defend such tactics if some group is actually already employing them as part of its liberation struggle, but to call on nonviolent peopleto become violent from a position outside their communities sounds problematic as hell.

Anybody else have some insights on this?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

WWWTT wrote:

Do you not watch the news? Did you not know the US lost in Vietnam? Is this the first time you heard of North Korea? I posted the question earlier of why Asians are not discriminated against as to the same degree as Africans in predominantly Western European colonial countries. This includes South America Australia and others outside North America. Now going back to geopolitical influences. I'm sure racists know very well that India has nuclear first strike capacity. Maybe a little voice in the back of a racist mind tells them hey this guy comes from a country that can wipe out others?

To me it seems you are talking about Western Imperialism not Canadian racism and how to have a productive conversation about it. The racial heirarchy imposed by the Europeans predates nuclear weapons. South Africa took that kind of racial injustice based on race to its bureaucratic conclusion. 

WWWTT

@Ken Burch
I'm not asking anyone to use violence. I'm trying to find areas where racism has been successfully dealt with, even if only to an arguably small degree, and dissecting studying researching to find common denominators. To ignore the obvious use of lethal force in so so many cases may lead to not finding a non violent resolution and invite lethal force.
Another good example would be Bruce Lee. A martial arts master/actor/writer etc etc. He popularized Kung fu action movies but did something inadvertently! Or maybe intentionally I don't know?
https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2012/jul/18/bruce-lee-films-bl...

WWWTT

@kropotkin 1951
Western imperialism vs racism in Canada? What's the difference? To me, the both are the same.
Obviously racism is not as bad in Canada as the US but to say hey we're Canadian and our racism isn't like their racism or imperialism or using ultimate lethal violence cannot end it(nuclear tactical strikes) can in itself be a racist comment! Don't believe nuclear weapons can end racism? Japan killed over 20 million Chinese people to rid of them. And we know how Japan was finally stopped

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

As it happens Magoo, I was talking more about Boze's videos. But since you don't want to talk about anything other than that one example, you might be right that him losing his job was overkill for walking out of a meeting. 

Are we done? as in, done, done. or are you going to trot it out again in a post or two?

I won't bring it up as something for you to give your opinion on, but I might still bring it up as an example of the overkill you mention.  I'm glad we can agree that it was over the top, but I can't pretend that "now that we two humans have agreed about this, it's all water under the bridge".  If it never happened again, I'd forget it soon enough, but I genuinely don't think this will turn out to be the last time.

Quote:
(I haven't bothered to do an inventory of how many times you have referenced that one incident, but I am curious)

If I had to guess, like I was guessing jellybeans in a jar, I'd go with about ten.  I hope there's not a statutory limit!

Quote:
And if we are, does it mean there is no racism on that campus?

Of course not.  But saying "I don't think THIS SPECIFIC THING is racism" is not the same as saying "there is no racism".  I think that that argument is also intended to stop discussion.

Quote:
Or that them being overzealous about it (for heaven's sake. A white guy had to suffer unfair consequences, after all)  cancels it out?

Why did he "have to" suffer consequences?  Can we talk about that?  That's what I've been asking all along.  You're acting like those consequences were merely accidental.

 

You seem quite confident the act of walking out was the only thing that led to the dismissal. What makes you so able to toss that strawman around in such certain terms? 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I think I have been saying all along that not all white people display this kind of overt racism. What is a lot more common though, is getting really defensive and refusing to listen when it is pointed out. Not all that different than a lot of men are when it comes to sexism.

Oh please Mister White Man Who Gets It while no one else does, tell us more. You seem to have a unique ability to see the issues from a non-white perspective while me or anyone else is just not that in tune. How do you get to be so fucking perfect?

That person at the medical clinic was only too willing to be transparent and to the point about shit I hear often when in private with only other "canadians". She was likely emboldened by the fellow "canadians" she hangs with.

 

It's unfortunate Smith you've actually given far more quarter in this thread than I would have. If they can't see it, they don't want to see it. I still struggle to grasp how defensive folks are on an issue that doesn't affect them and will never have a clue why certain movements may use the tactics they do.  (Hint: they've tried it politely with appeals to us and are nodded at and forgotten) 

 

Look in the mirror.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

As for making this about me pretending to be more enlightened, I'm not the person implying that I am not influenced personally by racism, or that I get to just pick and choose what is valid about others' experience of it.

So please tell who that person is. You have set up one of your claissic strawman arguments again. Nobody is saying those things they are merely talking points that you are using to make yourself into the good guy in your narrative about how you get it when nobody else  does. IMO that makes you a self indulgent white man playing at the saviour role. I personally find it rather nauseating.

Go puke then. There's a long way to go and the evidence is you k. You may be the most self-conscious of treating all as equals but you betray that by your defensiveness of a society that is far from that goal. I hate being personal but you almost seem to be taking it personally.

 

Smith is not the one being holier than thou. Everyone else is attacking him and because he's been the only one to respond with a different opinion, in the thread where his opinion as presented is the topic, now you're going to pull a strawman and claim he's a martyr? Get real.

 

He's actually engaging discussion without judging, unlike me.

 

Look in the mirror.                                   

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Boze wrote:

I have argued "if P, then Q."

Smith has countered with "well here in this situation we have Q's with no P. Therefore it is not the case that if P, then Q."

Hopefully it is clear why this is falacious.

 

It's quite clear. You're attempting to present your argument as fact, when it's all hypothetical. I can agree there is substance to your thesis but you need to expand your mind outside your "logic box" (I use that term very loosely) if you're ever going understand this topic. 

 

Hint: None of us can speak in absolutes here.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
The incident, and your amusement that there is a word for discrimination against someone who is black and female.

I don't even have an axe to grind against the idea that discrimination against someone who is black and female should warrant its own name.

I'm only suggesting that its first use shouldn't reasonably be against some administrator leaving a meeting early.  Is that what the word is intended to describe?

But if you'd like to champion this word, do you feel that should be its meaning?  Or else in what way are you supporting "misogynoir"? 

Calling it, it's "first use", demonstrates why you continue as you do. I'd also like to think you'd be quite aware of how things "are" and that you are able to understand context when you want to and you generally would not keep resorting to this strawman that it's "logical" the resignation was solely due to this. We're never likely to know, so I won't use it as an absolute, like you insist upon, in the absence of facts that you normally would ask for, but there's likely more to the the use of "mysognoir" than we're privy to. 

 

 

 

 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
And I'm not championing it; you are the person who claims that someone is asking you to salute it, even though you are the only one who keeps repeating it every couple of posts.

It's not so much that I'm being asked to "salute" it as that we were all asked to accept it as the reason for someone losing their job.

Quote:
We don't know what all went into the decision to ask him to resign, or his decision to resign.

Except the part about leaving a meeting.  Nobody's been shy about that.  If there's substantially more to the situation then I would have expected to hear substantially more.

Quote:
You might disagree, but the fact is we don't know.

They had no problem telling the world about the misogynoir, so why the problem telling the world about the rest?

 

Dude, it was the right wing white folk that made a big deal about it. You know the media machine was there right? All other matters are likely under a confidentiality clause. 

I know you know this. Why are you playing dumb?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

To get this a bit back on track, I will confess that there is something that makes me a bit uncomfortable in how the antiracist movement seems to be going these days:

A fair amount of the time, it sounds as though the POC leadership of the antiracist movement have decided that even the white activists who are there with them that day are not to be trusted...that it's not ever going to be accepted that even white allies or "accomplices" have earned the benefit of the doubt.  At Evergreen, I heard one speaker say that if whites who were there giving support didn't do a certain thing, that THOSE people were racists.

Is there some belief that white people who are there in support of the antiracist cause will ONLY do what they are supposed to do if their antiracism is never taken as a proven thing, if those people are never given trust or the benefit of the doubt?

​I find it hard to understand, on the level of practical activist strategy, what is achieved by sending the message "no matter what you do, we will never fully believe you are with us".

The anger that drives all of this I fully understand and share to as large a degree as I can. 

And white people absolutely do have a obligation to challenge racism wherever we see it.

I'm not calling for coddling or deference to white feelings here.

The utility and effectiveness of perpetually withholding trust and perpetually questioning people's commitment to antiracism is what I sometimes wonder about.  Why treat the people who are trying to stand with you as if they haven't ever proved they aren't AGAINST you? 

And what is achieved by doing so that is worth the risk of driving people away when their support is desperately needed?

Why not just say "if you want to help, this is what we need to you do, and we need it done now"?  

 

 

I'm surprised, (maybe not) that it's not clear that there is a new movement and new leaders with different tactics, that include more defiance and ownership. It's great when white folk march with you and achieve things like MLK was able to but, again, we do not fully understand the struggle. There's millions of real white allies yet nothing changes. It's hard at times to comprehend what BLM does but allow yourself to think perhaps why. It's not that difficult to understand and I question why, if you're committed to being an ally, it makes you uncomfortable. 

 

Should they not set the agenda of their own struggle? All these white allies and still they're shot by police, incarcerated, denied housing and jobs, etc., etc. at a disgustingly shameful rate with the only reason I can proffer (only my opinion) is we're scared of them.  (there's data along with my strong anecdotal observations) It's a visual thing that is immediate whereas it often requires a white or minority person to speak that completely juxtaposes our thoughts of them, good or bad.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Boze, you are a one trick pony. IQ, while somewhat "logical", in the context of the world we live in, is a tool of conformity. You seem to equate it to intelligence or capability or even "logical". You keep using that term, "logical". Magoo also uses it and you both seem to think or infer that "logic" is some kind of truth when it is anything but. 

 

You both also demonstrate a severe lack of understanding of "logic". You both don't actually seem interested in logic at all.

 

Upon this first, and in one sense this sole, rule of reason, that in order to learn you must desire to learn, and in so desiring not be satisfied with what you already incline to think, there follows one corollary which itself deserves to be inscribed upon every wall of the city of philosophy: Do not block the way of inquiry.”— Charles Sanders Peirce, "First Rule of Logic"

 

You both are not interested in inquiry but repeating what you already think. Can there not be good reason why folks are taking these actions you so oppose? Is it not possibly "logical" that absent any change in outcomes and continued, documented, admitted and verifiable discrimination against POC, that more aggressive action may be necessary, even if unsuccessful or ill conceived? Is it not "logical" that nothing was going to change without bringing more attention to their suffering? Quibble all you want that you agree there's problems but I just see you feeding the narrative that perpuates the status quo. Especially considering the reason for this thread and topic and the need for you to not engage in the discussion and maybe question and learn but to actively disregard it and claim  full understanding so as to belittle and ridicule something you know nothing of. 

 

Know your role, and as much as this is only my opinion, I do think some of your analyses hold true or logical in some sense but the absolutes you present them in, or other posts presenting thesis as fact, renders them moot and reveals the "logical" conclusion that you don't care to even try to understand. 

 

Magoo's manipulation of the "misogynoir", almost belittling it to, he probably had to use the washroom, and was FIRED!!! Deliberately ignoring, the timing, the posturing, the context, and myriad other reasons that I'm not aware of but he hasn't profferred any reason to think otherwise, but still, repeatedly claiming it was just because he left to go home. Is it "logical" to think Magoo's repeated assertion's to this effect are "logical"?  To clarify, if there was nothing else whatsoever, as Magoo has asserted it, I would agree 100% that it is was wrong. I'm quite sure Magoo also knows and knew when he was posting that isn't very likely. 

 

Your use of IQ (seems to be a pattern), was already an "illogical" use to me but you really demonstrated perhaps your, I'll call it, "Adaptive, Non-Conformist Thinking Quotient" may be impossible to raise also when you fallaciously presented as fact that IQ is basically pre-determined. If you had any "logic" or interest in discussion, you might have at least posited that assertion as possible, but you chose to further your poor white dude oppression by leaving that subtle unsaid inference that POC have lower IQ and will need white folk to help them. Then you meander aimlessly into white working class men feeling helpless and equating it equally to POC and females of the same working class, obliviously ignoring that you still don't get that it was still easier for them to get there and they're also still much less likely to occupy the lower classes. (We can agree the wealth gap and similar concerns affect us all but you use it as a disingenuous concern to try and bolster your thesis) Finally, totally off the rails with "white pride", claiming I don't know what. Hero? Perhaps, and quite likely, I just don't understand where this comes from? I do know a lot of white folk that act that way but you also contradict it all and speak out of both sides of your mouth by appealing to common humanity and common interest, which I agree with, but not once do you acknowledge that common humanity begins when humans are commonly treated equally. You turn the blame around to minorities and call on them to stand down but not once do you even attempt to understand why it's not possible until they're "actually" treated as equals.

 

I don't know what this hero thing is, or wanting to win, but you could be right as the conformity measured in IQ or our society's mindlessness and greed may mean you have a point. However, that's due to rote ways of living, repeatedly etched into our minds and accepted by most as non-conformists generally will suffer. That's not a heroic thinking, perhaps wanting to win, without even realizing there's no prize at the end. In fact, again you have no clue, as you equate people doing good as their need to be heroic and add "virtuous". Then you theorize they need to emulate someone, "I want to be like that". And that will lead to good? Tell me, I see a race to the bottom in the pursuit of greed and like you say, "winning", in the pursuit of emulation. Where is the good? Finally, you fully get naked and expose yourself, by equating this pursuit as a problem with the left because you think we care about winning or being a hero. If I wanted to win, I'd be a right winger like you and crush anyone that gets in my way. I want to be that guy that joins everyone to cross the finish line together, as equals, and yes, contrary to what you think, then everyone can and does win. 

 

(P.S.-I don't like doing this, but I scored an extremely high IQ on the gifted scale and attented gifted school, but fortunately for me, my environment enabled me to overcome that fault. I only include that for perspective on why I believe IQ to be useless.) 

6079_Smith_W

Thanks RP. And that first rule of logic quote is a great one.

Paladin1

RevolutionPlease wrote:

(P.S.-I don't like doing this, but I scored an extremely high IQ on the gifted scale and attented gifted school, but fortunately for me, my environment enabled me to overcome that fault. I only include that for perspective on why I believe IQ to be useless.) 

 

What did you score?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

To get this a bit back on track, I will confess that there is something that makes me a bit uncomfortable in how the antiracist movement seems to be going these days:

A fair amount of the time, it sounds as though the POC leadership of the antiracist movement have decided that even the white activists who are there with them that day are not to be trusted...that it's not ever going to be accepted that even white allies or "accomplices" have earned the benefit of the doubt.  At Evergreen, I heard one speaker say that if whites who were there giving support didn't do a certain thing, that THOSE people were racists.

Is there some belief that white people who are there in support of the antiracist cause will ONLY do what they are supposed to do if their antiracism is never taken as a proven thing, if those people are never given trust or the benefit of the doubt?

​I find it hard to understand, on the level of practical activist strategy, what is achieved by sending the message "no matter what you do, we will never fully believe you are with us".

The anger that drives all of this I fully understand and share to as large a degree as I can. 

And white people absolutely do have a obligation to challenge racism wherever we see it.

I'm not calling for coddling or deference to white feelings here.

The utility and effectiveness of perpetually withholding trust and perpetually questioning people's commitment to antiracism is what I sometimes wonder about.  Why treat the people who are trying to stand with you as if they haven't ever proved they aren't AGAINST you? 

And what is achieved by doing so that is worth the risk of driving people away when their support is desperately needed?

Why not just say "if you want to help, this is what we need to you do, and we need it done now"?  

 

 

I'm surprised, (maybe not) that it's not clear that there is a new movement and new leaders with different tactics, that include more defiance and ownership. It's great when white folk march with you and achieve things like MLK was able to but, again, we do not fully understand the struggle. There's millions of real white allies yet nothing changes. It's hard at times to comprehend what BLM does but allow yourself to think perhaps why. It's not that difficult to understand and I question why, if you're committed to being an ally, it makes you uncomfortable. 

 

Should they not set the agenda of their own struggle? All these white allies and still they're shot by police, incarcerated, denied housing and jobs, etc., etc. at a disgustingly shameful rate with the only reason I can proffer (only my opinion) is we're scared of them.  (there's data along with my strong anecdotal observations) It's a visual thing that is immediate whereas it often requires a white or minority person to speak that completely juxtaposes our thoughts of them, good or bad.

There is a new leadership and they have every right to set the agenda.  I've received more than one answer to what I asked there that has given me additional insight into where what I asked about is coming from.

 

Boze

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Boze, you are a one trick pony. IQ, while somewhat "logical", in the context of the world we live in, is a tool of conformity.

It's highly predictive of general intellectual ability. If you want to pretend that IQ doesn't real, go ahead, but don't expect to be taken seriously by anybody who has looked into the question.

Quote:
You both also demonstrate a severe lack of understanding of "logic". You both don't actually seem interested in logic at all.

Do tell.

Quote:
Upon this first, and in one sense this sole, rule of reason, that in order to learn you must desire to learn, and in so desiring not be satisfied with what you already incline to think, there follows one corollary which itself deserves to be inscribed upon every wall of the city of philosophy: Do not block the way of inquiry.”— Charles Sanders Peirce, "First Rule of Logic"

This is funny, because that's been my point this whole time. I'm super glad that you posted this though.

Quote:
You both are not interested in inquiry but repeating what you already think. Can there not be good reason why folks are taking these actions you so oppose? Is it not possibly "logical" that absent any change in outcomes and continued, documented, admitted and verifiable discrimination against POC, that more aggressive action may be necessary, even if unsuccessful or ill conceived?

Wait, so it's maybe ill-conceived, but not illogical? Yeah, I'll let you think about that some more. What you're doing is assuming that because I am firing off criticisms, I must not have considered anything the other side has to say, because if I had, I wouldn't speak as I am. This is what Magoo was talking about: "You're not listening" means "you don't agree, or you still won't shut up, therefore you can't possibly have listened. We are not interested in argument." In the specific case of the Evergreen protesters, I've read every document that I can find and watched all the footage I can find. The fact is these people are not interested in pleading their case, for the most part. They aren't interested in argument - again, for the most part. In contrast, it's really easy to find people making arguments for the other side. Too easy, in fact, which is maybe why I find myself ranting here. It's infuriating how many people on the so-called left don't feel that they need to argue their case. Maybe they even feel that argumentation is just another exercise of power, and not a means for determining what is true. This is maybe why the arguments on the right, these days, are so much better-practiced. Having to argue for every point makes your arguments well-practiced - forged in fire, as it were. Not having to argue, or not being willing to argue (because things are "not up for debate!!1") makes you weak.

Like the man said, "Do not block the way of inquiry." I'm going to keep repeating it.

Quote:
Is it not "logical" that nothing was going to change without bringing more attention to their suffering? Quibble all you want that you agree there's problems but I just see you feeding the narrative that perpuates the status quo.

It is a fallacy to assume that just because change needs to happen that any change is necessarily good. If it's possible for some change to be bad, then sometimes the status quo is preferable to what's being peddled.

Quote:
Especially considering the reason for this thread and topic and the need for you to not engage in the discussion and maybe question and learn but to actively disregard it and claim  full understanding so as to belittle and ridicule something you know nothing of.
 

I actually think I know a fair bit of what I speak when it comes to either logic or anti-oppression theory. Regardless, it's not difficult to call out ridiculousness when you see it, and that's really what I'm advocating for. We need more people to stand up and say "no, that's too much, that's ridiculous." Free speech matters, and individual rights matter. We need our leftist politics to be nested within liberal principles of individual liberty, free speech, free association, and treating people as individuals instead of as groups. Illiberal (often explicitly Leninist or Maoist) elements that reject dialogue need to be pointed out and argued against.

Quote:
Know your role, and as much as this is only my opinion, I do think some of your analyses hold true or logical in some sense but the absolutes you present them in, or other posts presenting thesis as fact, renders them moot and reveals the "logical" conclusion that you don't care to even try to understand.

"Know your role"? Step off. My role and my duty is to point out error where I see it. My highest loyalty is to the truth and the pursuit of truth.

Quote:
Magoo's manipulation of the "misogynoir", almost belittling it to, he probably had to use the washroom, and was FIRED!!! Deliberately ignoring, the timing, the posturing, the context, and myriad other reasons that I'm not aware of but he hasn't profferred any reason to think otherwise, but still, repeatedly claiming it was just because he left to go home. Is it "logical" to think Magoo's repeated assertion's to this effect are "logical"?  To clarify, if there was nothing else whatsoever, as Magoo has asserted it, I would agree 100% that it is was wrong. I'm quite sure Magoo also knows and knew when he was posting that isn't very likely.

What are the possible circumstances such that getting up and leaving a meeting could be described as "violent" and "anti-black"? Suppose he got up, kicked over his chair, said "this is all such a bunch of SHIT" and huffed and puffed his way out of the room muttering about "fucking commie scum." Pretty unlikely, but let's suppose. Would that be "violent" or "anti-black"? 

Furthermore, some of us have actually seen what groups like this actually react to. Maybe this biases us in favour of believing it to be a bunch of BS, but I also used to defend so-called "SJWs" and "political correctness" from ANY attack by people who I perceived as being right-wing opponents of social justice. I did not want to believe that things were as crazy as they have become. Once you see it, though, you can't unsee it. I compare it to radicalization in terms of a fundamental paradigm shift.

Quote:
Your use of IQ (seems to be a pattern), was already an "illogical" use to me but you really demonstrated perhaps your, I'll call it, "Adaptive, Non-Conformist Thinking Quotient" may be impossible to raise also when you fallaciously presented as fact that IQ is basically pre-determined. If you had any "logic" or interest in discussion, you might have at least posited that assertion as possible, but you chose to further your poor white dude oppression by leaving that subtle unsaid inference that POC have lower IQ and will need white folk to help them. Then you meander aimlessly into white working class men feeling helpless and equating it equally to POC and females of the same working class, obliviously ignoring that you still don't get that it was still easier for them to get there and they're also still much less likely to occupy the lower classes. (We can agree the wealth gap and similar concerns affect us all but you use it as a disingenuous concern to try and bolster your thesis) Finally, totally off the rails with "white pride", claiming I don't know what. Hero? Perhaps, and quite likely, I just don't understand where this comes from? I do know a lot of white folk that act that way but you also contradict it all and speak out of both sides of your mouth by appealing to common humanity and common interest, which I agree with, but not once do you acknowledge that common humanity begins when humans are commonly treated equally. You turn the blame around to minorities and call on them to stand down but not once do you even attempt to understand why it's not possible until they're "actually" treated as equals.

This is a bunch of crap. I don't make any comments about the "pre-determination" of IQ, I made no comments comnnecting race to IQ, I did not blame minorities for anything (because these radicals do not represent or speak for minorities), and common humanity cannot wait to begin until human beings are treated equally, because that is a hypothetical ideal to strive toward, but something that likely cannot be reached. We can never have perfect equality of opportunity, even as we strive ever for it. But also, we should acknowledge that we in North America are likely living in basically the most egalitarian and discrimination-free times that have ever existed anywhere on the planet.

Quote:
I don't know what this hero thing is, or wanting to win, but you could be right as the conformity measured in IQ or our society's mindlessness and greed may mean you have a point. However, that's due to rote ways of living, repeatedly etched into our minds and accepted by most as non-conformists generally will suffer. That's not a heroic thinking, perhaps wanting to win, without even realizing there's no prize at the end. In fact, again you have no clue, as you equate people doing good as their need to be heroic and add "virtuous". Then you theorize they need to emulate someone, "I want to be like that". And that will lead to good? Tell me, I see a race to the bottom in the pursuit of greed and like you say, "winning", in the pursuit of emulation. Where is the good? Finally, you fully get naked and expose yourself, by equating this pursuit as a problem with the left because you think we care about winning or being a hero. If I wanted to win, I'd be a right winger like you and crush anyone that gets in my way. I want to be that guy that joins everyone to cross the finish line together, as equals, and yes, contrary to what you think, then everyone can and does win. 

(P.S.-I don't like doing this, but I scored an extremely high IQ on the gifted scale and attented gifted school, but fortunately for me, my environment enabled me to overcome that fault. I only include that for perspective on why I believe IQ to be useless.) 

Okay, let me elaborate. Everyone can win at something, but everyone cannot win at everything. I think inequality is bad and socially destabilizing, but at the same time, perfect equality is impossible. You're never going to have perfect equality in competition for mates, just to use the most obvious example, and if you don't think humans compete on these terms (or if you think it's possible to "design" a human society in which humans don't compete on these terms) you're just not thinking clearly. You're also not ever going to have perfect equality in terms of jobs, because the number of people who can be neurosurgeons is really limited to a relatively small percentage of the population. Automation is going to keep on gobbling jobs. How many people are going to be put out of work by driverless vehicles? What are these people going to do? I don't see a way of dealing with this problem other than providing unconditional basic income, a solid education system, and a lively, functioning civil society to help people increase their own autonomy and realize their potential in as many ways as they can and on their own terms to as great a degree as is possible. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Here is a great article about the upturn in racism in Vancouver. Just because I think dialogue is the answer and not exclusion of peoples voices based on colour does not mean I think that racism in Canada is a minor problem. It is real and systemic and the only way we can tackle it is by everyone feeling comfortable enough to confront it. 

My only hope is that now that these opinions are being expressed publicly rather than hidden, they can be addressed and educating others can become more widespread.

That's why it's time for people, not just Asian Canadians, to speak out when they witness, read, or experience discriminatory expressions in public, whether it's racism, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, sexism, or any other prejudicial opinions.

Because it's not immigrants who are eroding Canadian values. It's the ignorant.

http://www.straight.com/news/928646/no-its-not-fine-call-me-chinaman-it-...

Paladin1

I've been reading bits and pieces about segregated graduations, I think from Harvard. Black only.

As a white male I'm curious what I'm supposed to think about this?

Of course if there was a white only graduation that would be racist and denounced. My first reaction is that it's a bad thing and step backwards.  But being a black graduation ceremoney I'm going to guess that it's perfectly acceptable because of systemic racisim and it's some kind of acomplishment or statement? It's not discrimination?  Is it safe to say that anyone other than white people can support this type segregation?

 

 

Reading various things ok social media I admit I'm having a hard time following some of this stuff. I just read certain haircuts are racist. I don't mean a white girl wearing tradicional africa american hairstyles but someone having the same haircut as an "alt-right" voter (or whatever they're called).  Are we going overboard with labeling too much stuff racist? The same as everything now seems to be nazi?

voice of the damned

I guess this is one of the article about alt-right haircuts?

http://tinyurl.com/ydz9eupz

If I were someone who had that kind of haircut before the racists started sporting it, I don't think I would be inclined to change it just because some people were now using it as a racist symbol. (IMO, the people of Swastika Ontario were right to resist changing their name after Hitler came along)

Furthermore, if a haircut becomes taboo because a bad group starts using it, does the principle work in reverse? I'm sure there were a lot of people in the early 70s wearing long hair just because it was the fashion. Should the left have applaued anyone doing so, on the grounds that they were embracing hippie values? That would be a pretty naive and dangerous way to approach the world.  

WWWTT

@kropotkin 1951

Thanks for the article that touches on another ugly face of Canada including Japanese Canadian internment during WW2(but oddly not mentioned in the article)

I think the author is very limited in his approach. First off, he uses a picture of two hot Chinese women at the top of his article???? Or maybe he is making a statement with this I don't know? All I know is that if you are sexually active and are a racist. A hot piece from the race you descriminate against can change you! Maybe I'm wrong? But if so, I should be right!
Another thing Keanu Reeves also has Portuguese heritage (and much more) and has a ver interesting background worth checking out. And the author fails to mention Tommy Chong! Maybe the author is prejudiced against marihuana activists?

Paladin1

voice of the damned wrote:

I guess this is one of the article about alt-right haircuts?

http://tinyurl.com/ydz9eupz

If I were someone who had that kind of haircut before the racists started sporting it, I don't think I would be inclined to change it just because some people were now using it as a racist symbol. (IMO, the people of Swastika Ontario were right to resist changing their name after Hitler came along)

Furthermore, if a haircut becomes taboo because a bad group starts using it, does the principle work in reverse? I'm sure there were a lot of people in the early 70s wearing long hair just because it was the fashion. Should the left have applaued anyone doing so, on the grounds that they were embracing hippie values? That would be a pretty naive and dangerous way to approach the world.  

I didn't see that specific article but that's what I'm talking about yes, thank you.

"Haircuts are scary".

"Until a few weeks ago, you saw a man with that haircut and assumed he might be a good person to hit on, or to buy small-batch beer from, or to ask the whereabouts of the nearest bicycle shop. Now you see him and wonder if he’s trying to deport half the nation."

 

Society is so dramatic now. Stereotyping someone because of how they look, nice. If a haircut scares someone they should probably stay inside.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
As a white male I'm curious what I'm supposed to think about this?

Well, my first thought would be "think about something that actually matters to white males".  I mean, if a bunch of black grads want to celebrate together, and without me (*snif!*) it's not really the end of the world.

On the flip side, though, there does seem something peculiar about voluntary segregation.  Would a black-only water fountain be empowering, or just sort of odd in 2017?

Quote:
If I were someone who had that kind of haircut before the racists started sporting it, I don't think I would be inclined to change it just because some people were now using it as a racist symbol.

Geez.  I think what we should really be asking is "why do all these 'small n Nazis' want to look like Macklemore?

Quote:
If a haircut scares someone they should probably stay inside.

Hasn't there always been a haircut that scares someone?  The "mop top", hippie hair, dreadlocks, cornrows, skinhead and the Mohawk spring to mind.

 

 

Paladin1

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Well, my first thought would be "think about something that actually matters to white males".  I mean, if a bunch of black grads want to celebrate together, and without me (*snif!*) it's not really the end of the world.

I'm trying to wrap my head around if it's racist or not (the old battle about if POC can be racist or not)

Is segregated grads something for POCs to emulate?  They still attended official graduations so it wasn't putting anyone out or anything.  I'd give myself gastro on purpose to avoid parades and ceremonies so maybe I just don't get it :)

Quote:

Geez.  I think what we should really be asking is "why do all these 'small n Nazis' want to look like Macklemore?

Tell me about it.

 

 

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I'm trying to wrap my head around if it's racist or not (the old battle about if POC can be racist or not)

One pretty obvious decider of that would be whether attendance is optional.

When schools were segregated in the U.S., it wasn't optional.  That would surely be racism.

When a group -- any -- wants to get together on their own and celebrate their own, it's really not quite the same thing.  It would be like saying that the "Latin Grammys" are racist if Justin Bieber can't win one.

Quote:
Tell me about it.

I ask for a similar cut.  As short on the sides as I can convince my stylist to go, and longer on top.  I can't do a Macklemore because I sadly don't have quite enough on top any more, so I part mine on the side.

Which, ironically, is known as a "business" cut.  Make what you will of that. 

Parted on the side:  every male CEO/Vice-President of Marketing

Slicked back and thick:  every Nazi/David Beckham

Paladin1

Mr. Magoo wrote:

One pretty obvious decider of that would be whether attendance is optional.

When schools were segregated in the U.S., it wasn't optional.  That would surely be racism.

When a group -- any -- wants to get together on their own and celebrate their own, it's really not quite the same thing.  It would be like saying that the "Latin Grammys" are racist if Justin Bieber can't win one.

It makes me think of girls joining the boyscouts.

What if a white harvard student wanted to attend the black graduation? Would they say no whites allowed? A black-only grad is discriminating against race, isn't it?

 

Quote:

I ask for a similar cut.  As short on the sides as I can convince my stylist to go, and longer on top.  I can't do a Macklemore because I sadly don't have quite enough on top any more, so I part mine on the side.

Which, ironically, is known as a "business" cut.  Make what you will of that. 

Parted on the side:  every male CEO/Vice-President of Marketing

Slicked back and thick:  every Nazi/David Beckham

I get called a racist and skinhead pretty often. I'd love to rock a mohawk or fucked up head of wild hair but even without strict grooming standards (being non-religious/indiginous, 4" max on top) if I did grow out my hair I would look like Captain Picard. So I bic it ever 3 days.  I can grow an epic beard though like you wouldn't believe.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
What if a white harvard student wanted to attend the black graduation? Would they say no whites allowed?

Probably.  But if I understand correctly, this is essentially a private function.  Harvard has not said "we shall hold two graduation ceremonies, but white students may only attend one of them".  My clue to this is that apparently the black graduation was "crowd funded" -- students generally don't have to fund their own graduation, apart from tuition.

 

WWWTT

I think if I said a big part of racism is ignorance, many here would agree to at least some extent.

Here's a test

Look at these symbols 卐 卍. So what pops into your mind. What did you see? I call these symbols/characters wan. Pinyin for Mandarin Chinese dialect with falling tone. Auspicious sacred symbol in Hinduism Jainism and Buddhism.
When the white Germans used this symbol, everyone in the west recognizes one way. If your from Asia, you know it another way. If you see nazi symbol, give yourself a big pat on the back my ignorant friends, it's time to go educate yourself! And don't expect any Canadian educational institutions to teach you anything beyond being a corporate slave to worship money!
http://www.whatsonweibo.com/wanisnotanazisymbol/
If you do more research on the wan you'll find it may very well be the oldest symbol used by humans! Very mysterious and very shameful how people in the west perceive!

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Look at these symbols 卐 卍. So what pops into your mind. What did you see?

A swastika, looking in the mirror, and asking itself "What have I become???"

6079_Smith_W

Paladin1 wrote:

It makes me think of girls joining the boyscouts.

Scouts Canada is open to anyone. There are female scouts here.

Paladin1

Sorry WWWTT I gotta disagree.

You can't chalk people up as ignorant for seeing a swastika first considering the history of WW2 and even how much it's thrown around in modern soceity today. Calling people nazi is a daily occurance these days, one might even say standard operating proceedure for debating on the internet.

Someone who doesn't have a history backround or educated in post secondary school won't likely pick that up.

Education-privilage! :)

WWWTT

Ignorance is like your body in the sense that everyone has one and many are ashamed of it. Racists famously use ignorance to suppress groups of people.

Fighting racism with educating yourself is MANDATORY!!!!!!!

Now let me ask you this, if you seen this symbol 卐 or 卍 in somebody's house, or in their car or on a carpet or worked into a wood patterned door, would you think they were a nazi? Think about it. Think about how that person may feel if you thought they were a racist nazi.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I knew ManWoman when I lived in Cranbrook many years ago. He really opened my eyes to the ancient history of the symbol. The fact that it was an almost universal positive figure is why the propagandists in the Nazi party chose it. Hell before Hitler they even used it to sell Coke. So knowing that bit of history proves what again?

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/avn78e/manwoman-is-taking-back-the-sw...

WWWTT

Tells me you're not ignorant of the most misunderstood symbol currently in the western world for starters. Tells me you may be open to seeing the world in different ways by the way you said it.
If everyone educates themselves in other cultures as we both have. I believe we take something away from racists.

Paladin1

WWWTT wrote:
Ignorance is like your body in the sense that everyone has one and many are ashamed of it. Racists famously use ignorance to suppress groups of people.

I think racists use racism as a way to elevate themselves over other people.  A form of hierarchy. The same way CEOs put their office on the top floor of a building.

Quote:
Now let me ask you this, if you seen this symbol 卐 or 卍 in somebody's house, or in their car or on a carpet or worked into a wood patterned door, would you think they were a nazi?

I would think one of three things.

1- They identify as Neo-Nazi's.

2- They were history fans and trying to make a statement about ancient history.

3- They thought they would be edgy or clever and display a swastika so they could correct people who mistook it for a swastika and I don't know, appear worldly or educated.

 

Regardless I would know they knew full well exactly how the majority of people seeing it would think and react and I'd think they're attention seeking.

Now I'll just go put on Che Guevara T-shirt and preach about peace and tollerence .

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I think it's almost a "Trivial Pursuit" question to ask about this:  卍

I don't think that any neo-Nazi worth his salt would salute it, because it's "running backward".  And I totally know that it's an ancient symbol -- a symbol of GOOD LUCK.

But the other one?  Yes, I get that it's also an ancient symbol.  But it was also a very recent symbol... co-opted or not.

Here's a pic I took years ago, in Chinatown.  I use it all the time in my classes, always with a brief reminder that the symbol in the middle isn't what it might seem.

Paladin1

Mind if I ask what subject/s you teach Magoo?

quizzical

you know what i see in this thread?

a whole bunch of white men stating 'they're less racist than any other and here's why'.

if it wasn't so sad it'd be funny.

WWWTT

Paladin1 wrote:

I think racists use racism as a way to elevate themselves over other people.  A form of hierarchy. The same way CEOs put their office on the top floor of a building.


Ok now we're getting somewhere

Here's another part of how ignorance is used. True example-If you tell everyone, hey those native Americans are just stupid savages, they just go around killing people and do human sacrifices. Ya they're stupid and we better take away their land because they'll just do something stupid with it. Who knows what savages will do? You also have to make it sound convincing by suppressing incredibly advanced achievements made by the natives

http://www.storyofmathematics.com/mayan.html

So tell me now, how many people here knew about this?

Is the concept of zero "trivial"

If you think the concept of zero is "trivial" then your probably a racist

Don't think the concept of zero isn't one of the most important discoveries to the human understanding of math and science not to mention human understanding of the universe? Multiply any two random huge numbers or divide any two random huge numbers like say for example 6468 x 86447, or 678 divided by 65, without a calculator! Oh and no cheating using a blank spot where the zero would usually go. Good luck with that one savages!

Without zero a lot of what we take for granted today wouldn't exist.

It took an absolutely incredible insight and powerful wisdom to discover zero in my opinion.

I'm sure a white racist pig wouldn't want anyone knowing a non white peoples were pivotal in the advancement of the human race!

Paladin1

quizzical wrote:

you know what i see in this thread?

a whole bunch of white men stating 'they're less racist than any other and here's why'.

if it wasn't so sad it'd be funny.

Are you racist quizzical?

Paladin1

WWWTT wrote:
If you think the concept of zero is "trivial" then your probably a racist

Haircuts are racist and now trivializing zero?

Quote:
Without zero a lot of what we take for granted today wouldn't exist. It took an absolutely incredible insight and powerful wisdom to discover zero in my opinion. I'm sure a white racist pig wouldn't want anyone knowing a non white peoples were pivotal in the advancement of the human race!

People in Africa, Europe and Asia never understood zero before the Mayans pointed it out?

6079_Smith_W

So nobody saw this and thought it might be a little bit odd.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/06/25/fete-nationale-parade-float-push...

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

So nobody saw this and thought it might be a little bit odd.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/06/25/fete-nationale-parade-float-push...

Yeah...that IS messed up.  And it's even more messed up that the spokesperson for the parade believes the "green values" of having people pull carts makes up for the fact that it is people of color pulling the carts while white people ride them.

6079_Smith_W

I suppose we could also spin it as sport teams discriminating against white students.

WWWTT

@ Paladin 1
Sorry brother I guess I'm a little over the top.

And yes it was only the Mayans who had the mathematical concept of zero and zero having numerical value.

The point I'm trying to make (I thought I already made clear) is that white European colonial mentality uses ignorance of facts to belittle the people being conquered raped of and used to justify stealing. Plagerism may be a part of it too.

Either way, I at least made my point with a few posters here, thanks for reading my posts

Paladin1

Nothing against you my friend I was just commenting with a context that it seems like everything  is racist. When we over use words like racist and nazi they lose their significance, IMO. I enjoyed reading about the mayans thanks for posting that. I'm a big history nerd and really enjoy ancient history especially. I think we've forgotten a lot about science and our planet.

I've heard race described as mutations based on our environment. The altitude in which people lived, exposure to the sun and other elements. I find the belief that one race is superior to another to be absoluetly ridiculous.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

From WWWTT's link:

Quote:
However, due to the geographical disconnect, Mayan and Mesoamerican mathematics had absolutely no influence on Old World (European and Asian) numbering systems and mathematics.

So I guess nothing was stolen, or used without appropriate attiribution.

Quote:
Oh and no cheating using a blank spot where the zero would usually go. Good luck with that one savages!

Lots of other cultures understood that blank spot (and simply used a blank spot to "represent" that blank spot).  Are you suggesting that using a "shell" symbol for it was the big breakthrough?

Quote:
I'm sure a white racist pig wouldn't want anyone knowing a non white peoples were pivotal in the advancement of the human race!

So, again:

Quote:
However, due to the geographical disconnect, Mayan and Mesoamerican mathematics had absolutely no influence on Old World (European and Asian) numbering systems and mathematics.

6079_Smith_W

Well they probably wouldn't want to know that the what we now use is the hindu arabic system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu%E2%80%93Arabic_numeral_system

Paladin1

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/video?clipId=1157283&playlistId=1.3481577&b...

 

Awkward exchange at a press conference. I watched this and I couldn't tell if the white woman was being disrespectful to the FN women or not.  Personally it seems like the FN women are ramping themselves up on purpose and looking for a fight. Am I incorrect in my observation?

Pages

Topic locked