racism (a handy guide)

[phuckphace]

if you ask the average person to define racism, they will usually mumble something dumb about unwarranted dislike of black people, but it's a lazy explanation that doesn't come very close to reality. so here I am to set the record straight (with the Ferguson shit going down, it seems just as good of a time as any).

it appears that the logic behind the above-mentioned definition uses the "oppressor/oppressee" angle. in this liberal-arts version of reality, racism requires a powerful, privileged (read: white) establishment along with a powerless, "lesser" group (read: any high-melanin minority group) as the eternal oppressee of said establishment to exploit. that's why you've been hearing about "privilege" and how to "check" it, because privilege leads to Hitler.

back on Earth, racism is far, far more complex and doesn't always look anything like the white oppressor/brown oppressee model. if it did, examples of racist discrimination between two or more brown oppressees wouldn't be a thing, but they actually are. in California there's the well-known ethnic rivalries between Mexicans and blacks. the race and ethnicity-based mutual loathing between the Chicanos and the Brothas often erupts in violence that rivals anything the cops in Ferguson did to anyone. I myself went to Mexico a couple of years ago on a trip and saw a gift shop called El Negro, with a cartoonish black caricature as a mascot (huge lips, small forehead, cap worn backwards, brutish facial expression). having had years of exposure to Chicano culture, it is obvious to me (and confirmed by many Chicanos themselves) that their dislike of blacks runs deep, sometimes with a murderous intensity that'll startle you if you're not used to it. thanks to the Mexican family that used to live next door, pinche negro was one of the very first Spanish phrases I inadvertently learned. :lol3:

it's also well-known that the Western slave trade was supplied with slaves by certain African tribes who captured their rivals in war and then sold them to Europeans. this is generally omitted from the history books because it doesn't fit very well with the "white oppressor/brown oppressee" narrative (not to mention it would be awkward to put a black guy in a neck brace during the UK's next "so sorry" event.)

so what is racism, really? - racism is more accurately defined as the tension and conflict that emerges between two or more groups with differences. In this light, we can see how racism really works - any time a group of people come in contact with another group who have a different culture, different customs and thus behave differently, tension and rivalry between them is pretty much a given. the multiculturalist is momentarily baffled when his social experiment fails and erupts in violence, before quickly regaining composure and blaming white people. but for those of us who truly understand racism and its root causes, it's like, "Well, what did you expect?"

[Gamma Male]

I stopped reading about halfway through the second paragraph. Didn't seem like anything I haven't already read in your posts.


You know what my theory is? Not about racism, about you. You're an anti conformist. Not a nonconformist, but an anti conformist. Instead of just going along with the crowd, or disregarding popular opinion completely, you actively go against popular opinion in almost all of your views. Maybe not consciously, but subconsciously. At first I mistook you for a troll, but I've realized that you honestly do believe what you say. You just don't know that the reason you believe what you do is because you enjoy feeling edgy and unwelcome and out of place. I'm not really sure why this is, I'm not a psychologist. Maybe your mother didn't hug you enough.

[phuckphace]

I stopped reading about halfway through the second paragraph. Didn't seem like anything I haven't already read in your posts.


You know what my theory is? Not about racism, about you. You're an anti conformist. Not a nonconformist, but an anti conformist. Instead of just going along with the crowd, or disregarding popular opinion completely, you actively go against popular opinion in almost all of your views. Maybe not consciously, but subconsciously. At first I mistook you for a troll, but I've realized that you honestly do believe what you say. You just don't know that the reason you believe what you do is because you enjoy feeling edgy and unwelcome and out of place. I'm not really sure why this is, I'm not a psychologist. Maybe your mother didn't hug you enough.

:lol3:

you're more than welcome to start a new thread wherein you can painstakingly deconstruct my psychology. but since this is a serious thread about a serious topic, I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from posting unless you're going to either engage the points I laid out or add something useful to the OP. this thread is fine without your acrimonious ankle-biting.

[Blood]

I stopped reading about halfway through the second paragraph. Didn't seem like anything I haven't already read in your posts.


You know what my theory is? Not about racism, about you. You're an anti conformist. Not a nonconformist, but an anti conformist. Instead of just going along with the crowd, or disregarding popular opinion completely, you actively go against popular opinion in almost all of your views. Maybe not consciously, but subconsciously. At first I mistook you for a troll, but I've realized that you honestly do believe what you say. You just don't know that the reason you believe what you do is because you enjoy feeling edgy and unwelcome and out of place. I'm not really sure why this is, I'm not a psychologist. Maybe your mother didn't hug you enough.

Yeah, I honestly couldn't agree more. I didn't know how to word it like this without calling the OP a complete fucktard, so +1 for accomplishing that Gamma.

Phuckphace, you're simply trying so hard to go against the crowd that you're coming across as pathetic.

This thread stopped being serious after the first paragraph, sorry to burst your bubble.

[Typhlosion]

Let's please keep on topic. If you continue to post attacks directed at phuckphace and his attitutude and/or philosphy, this thread will be locked.

[Lovelife090994]

I admit racism is serious but I have no idea where you are going with this.

[Living For Love]

That's a different way to look at racism, I guess, and it seems valid, even though the Ferguson cock-up has nothing to do with racism. As long as we continue to promote a multicultural society, at least here, in Europe, and fail to acknowledge that different cultures rarely get along well with each other if one doesn't adopt or assimilate the other's main costumes and traditions, then racism will still happen. It's still stupid to prejudge someone based only on the colour of their skin, or on their race, but since we can't change people's minds so easily as we can change laws and policies, we should focus more on creating conditions in our society that won't promote racism rather than simply do nothing at all.

[Vlerchan]

Don't worry, phuckphace. I still enjoy your posts.

if you ask the average person to define racism, they will usually mumble something dumb about unwarranted dislike of black people, but it's a lazy explanation that doesn't come very close to reality. so here I am to set the record straight.
Allow me to do so first:

Prejudice: preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. In terms of race it can be dumbed-down to unwarranted dislike of people as a result of their race. It's a feeling.

Discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex. In terms of race it can be dumbed-down to the unwarranted mistreatment of a person as a result of their race. It's an action or series of actions.

Racism: is a system of categorical privileged, as defined in sociology [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Sociological). It can be be dumbed-down to the unwarranted and systematic mistreatment though social institutions, beliefs or otherwise of a people as a result of their race. It's a system.

You'll note that it's different from the definition that phuckphace gives. phuckphace's definition is that of discrimination.

in this liberal-arts version of reality, racism requires a powerful, privileged (read: white) establishment along with a powerless, "lesser" group (read: any high-melanin minority group) as the eternal oppressee of said establishment to exploit.
It should be obvious why this is correct if you're running off the proper definition of 'racism' and not phuckphace's: in order for 'a system of categorical privileged' to exist the oppressing group must hold high degrees of political and economic power (more importantly the latter because EPPPP - Economic Power Precedes Political Power). In theory that means that any ethnic group can be the oppressor - it's not just restricted to whites: the set-up in Myanmar (Burma) is an obvious example where minority Muslims are oppressed by the non-white Majority Buddhists: It's also historically been the case where whites have been oppressed, such as what occurred to the ethnic Irish during the period of English (later British) occupation, most evident in the draconian anti-Catholic penal laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_Laws_(Ireland)).

What phuckphace says makes sense if you use his definition of racism (see: discrimination).

in California there's the well-known ethnic rivalries between Mexicans and blacks.
Neither group holds systematic privileged over the other so it's not racism.

---

I agree with the rest of the paragraph: ethnic rivalries and ethnic conflict does exist between inner-city working class blacks and inner-city Hispanics; both communities can be deeply prejudiced, and both communities can engage in racial discrimination against the other. I do believe that this can be solved though without genociding/exiling/other-ing one group, as I'll get to below, and it caused by more than just the two having different skin colours.

so what is racism, really? - racism is more accurately defined as the tension and conflict that emerges between two or more groups with differences.
I can't stress how wrong this is.

In sociology different terms are used to describe these phenomenon: ethnic rivalry and ethnic conflict.

In this light, we can see how racism really works - any time a group of people come in contact with another group who have a different culture, different customs and thus behave differently, tension and rivalry between them is pretty much a given.
I'm going to call this out as the gross simplification it is: multi-ethnic societies (see: Canada) have existed, and do thrive, so this is wrong off the bat. How ethnic rivalry and ethnic conflict emerge is complicated - and I shouldn't have to say that it's a lot more complicated than what phuckphace is making out. In general poverty rates and levels of income inequality improve the chance of civil conflict:

We argue that civil conflicts are more likely to erupt in areas with low absolute income, even if a country’s GDP per capita is not necessarily low, and in areas with large deviations from national averages. We test these hypotheses empirically using spatially disaggregated data on the location of conflict outbreaks and per capita income estimates. We find that areas with absolute poverty indeed see more outbreaks of conflict, and we also find some evidence that inequality increases the risk of conflict.

http://www.hbuhaug.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/JCR-2011-for-web.pdf

Some research into the subject has concluded that "after controlling for per capita income, more ethnically or religiously diverse countries have been no more likely to experience significant civil violence in this period."

An influential conventional wisdom holds that civil wars proliferated rapidly with the end of the Cold War and that the root cause of many or most of these has been ethnic and religious antagonisms. We show that the current prevalence of internal war is mainly the result of a steady accumulation of protracted conflicts since the 1950s and 1960s rather than a sudden change associated with a new, post-Cold War international system. We also find that after controlling for per capita income, more ethnically or religiously diverse countries have been no more likely to experience significant civil violence in this period. We argue for understanding civil war in this period in terms of insurgency or rural guerrilla warfare, a particular form of military practice that can be harnessed to diverse political agendas. The factors that explain which countries have been at risk for civil war are not their ethnic or religious characteristics but rather the conditions that favor insurgency. These include poverty--which marks financially & bureaucratically weak states and also favors rebel recruitment--political instability, rough terrain, and large populations.

http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/21459/fearlait.pdf

To conclude, current data indicates that within the current century our countries are going to become more diverse and diverse: this is not just because we are letting more immigrants in but rather that due to changing demographic trends we're reaching a stage where natives are simply being outbreeded by immigrants; who tend to be poorer. That's why in the coming age I feel it's important that our states divert away from neoliberalism and embrace at least some form of socialism, benefiting everyone, because as my first study comments:

Whereas traditional models of national development predict minority assimilation, peripheral economic status fueled further ethnic polarization and nationalism.

http://www.hbuhaug.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/JCR-2011-for-web.pdf

And it's nationalism and not multiculturalism that fuels ethnic rivalry and conflict.

[phuckphace]

Phuckphace, you're simply trying so hard to go against the crowd that you're coming across as pathetic.

if either of you had actually bothered to seriously read my posts instead of just skimming and sneerposting, you would be aware of the fact that I strongly believe in conformity in a society in order to keep things orderly and peaceful. I'm the one who blends into the crowd and tries to surround himself with people who are like me and have the same kind of life and friends that I do. but hey, I guess we've invented a new concept: "the individualist-conformist". seems legit.

as for the reactions my posts get, I feel like I've accidentally trolled about two-thirds of posters on this site just by posting a discussion thread with a straight face. yeah my views are unorthodox, but why not have a discussion and maybe open your mind a little bit? I promise the obnoxious opinions I type won't skewer your eyes out.

This thread stopped being serious after the first paragraph, sorry to burst your bubble.

because you don't personally agree with it? alrighty then.

---------------

@Vlerchan: I'll come back later and write up a reply to your post when I'm less sober/nicer. thanks for actually making a serious post btw

[phuckphace]

*

I'm aware of the distinctions between prejudice/racism/etc. the issue isn't one of semantics but rather the simple fact that only one narrowly defined variant of racism and prejudice is acceptable in political discourse (i.e. that which whites are guilty of) according to progressives. one of the main reasons I made this thread was to rail against this as one major cause of racial tension today - progressives think they're helping minorities by reflexively siding with them at all times against whitey, but your average everyday person knows from experience that minorities are not faultless and so the progressives' alleged compassion for the oppressed just comes across as insincere and opportunistic. we're not ever going to get anywhere with regard to improving race relations if the game plan is just "blame white people for everything" when the issue is way more complex than that.

on the subject of media bias, it is undeniable that the establishment media in the US has more than its fair share of guilt in stirring up ethnic violence via tabloid-tier race baiting. as you yourself once put it, it would require one to actively deny reality that this is not occurring. see for example the media's attempts to portray George Zimmerman as the whitest Anglo-Saxon alive, despite his obvious Hispanic appearance and Zimmerman himself identifying as a Hispanic American. during the Trayvon Martin media frenzy, David Duke the white nationalist put out a statement addressed to black people warning them not to take the media's race-bait, which pretty much nobody else did. you know things are bad when a hack like David Duke is one of the few voices of reason. I believe he also mentioned how blacks and Hispanics can murder each other all day every day in Cali but it only makes the news if the perp is white or believed to be white. he might be a kook but he's right here.

there's a pretty good reason why nobody of any significance on the Left has ever implicated neoliberalism by name for its role in worsening the plight of minorities in the US, since doing so might reveal "white privilege" for the illusion that it is (neoliberalism has of course done significant damage to economic opportunities for millions of whites as well). when you're a single white guy like me working full time to pay rent and gas and get turned away by the food stamp office because you make "too much money" to qualify (ayyy lmao) but Jose and Maria the illegal immigrants get $1,200 a month for their gaggle of chubby children whose ankles are already starting to bruise from the diabetes, you start to wonder about this white privilege and how to activate it. but there's no money to be made in taking an honest approach and having some humility, when you can just extract reparations with guilt tripping. in other words, the racism industrial complex. :D

Bill Cosby made an excellent observation in his "Pound Cake speech" where he questioned the one-sided approach by the media. nobody ever asks what the black kid was doing trying to rob a convenience store in the first place. Cosby told us about how he saw the pound cake but knew he didn't have any money and what would happen if he stole it and got caught. it seems like a simple enough concept but of course Cosby and anyone else who dares point this out gets branded as an Uncle Tom and/or Ruckus and the resentment burns ever hotter.

[Vlerchan]

the issue isn't one of semantics but rather the simple fact that only one narrowly defined variant of racism and prejudice is acceptable in political discourse (i.e. that which whites are guilty of) according to progressives.
No, everyone can be guilty of prejudice.

Though I get where you're coming from: obviously, as a white nationalist (and I don't mean that in a pejorative way) the term racism, a term that holds hugely negative connotations, being linked to only whites in mainstream political discourse is a bad state of affairs. I, of course, as an internationalist and progressive, don't want to change that, because it undermines a cause I disagree with (let's all be honest for a moment). So, we reach a dead end here: I personally don't ever see racism being re-defined the way you want it, because sociology - and the feel-y side of liberal arts in general - is dominated by progressives who want the same as me.

we're not ever going to get anywhere with regard to improving race relations if the game plan is just "blame white people for everything" when the issue is way more complex than that.
It's not as much 'blame the white people for everything' as 'view the white people as a root here'. I find that in order to understand race relations in the US it has to be viewed as a race and class issue simultaneously: I don't believe it's possible to separate the ideas: it's the economic domination of black and Hispanic working-class people by white bourgeoisie that fuels the tribal-like antipathies between the two groups. As was brought up in my earlier-linked study, civil disorder and conflict stems from absolute poverty and income inequality, something which both communities have as a result of domination by white bourgeoisie.

It's also been suggested (http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/32/3/in-search-of-manhood-the-black-males-struggle-for-identity-and-power) that these inner-city black communities are more violent (and masculine) as a result of this institutional oppression as they try to compensate for the feelings of powerlessness that come with their socio-economic position. It's a theory, so I've no empirical backing - I don't think any is possible, but I think it's interesting nonetheless.

---

It should be also noted that when I use terms like 'white people' I mean that in a Gramscian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci#Hegemony) sense, in that the current (ideological) hegemony suits white people's interests, and is perpetuated by a white elite (the dominant interest group due to their economic and political power): white people as a whole aren't out to get to get non-white people, but the current system is crafted to favour white people. I'm actually pretty sure you probably knew what I was referring to here, but I like clearing this up because I don't want someone else jumping in and attacking me for generalising.

on the subject of media bias, it is undeniable that the establishment media in the US has more than its fair share of guilt in stirring up ethnic violence via tabloid-tier race baiting.
I agree here. I do feel that the media tries to stir up racial antagonisms because it makes a better story. I of course do still hold that black people tend to be unduly targeted by police brutality (I produced studies in that 'Ferguson' thread - I presume you read them), but I would agree with the basis of your idea: the media does not help by jumping to undue conclusions about each case of white-on-black crime.

there's a pretty good reason why nobody on the Left has ever implicated neoliberalism by name for its role in worsening the plight of minorities.
I regularly do but lets see where this goes...

... since doing so might reveal "white privilege" for the illusion that it is (neoliberalism has of course done significant damage to economic opportunities for millions of whites as well).
What do you think 'white privilege is'? out of interest.

From this (half) sentence it seems like we have to conflicting definitions running at the same time. I'd define 'white privilege' as white people benefiting from a climate of non-discrimination, on a meaningful scale - i.e., your black neighbour might call you a cracker but you don't have to suffer from the horizontal or vertical occupational segregation that black people have to suffer from (seen all over the place in this (http://www.epi.org/publication/restaurant-workers/) study).

but Jose and Maria the illegal immigrants get $1,200 a month for their gaggle of chubby children whose ankles are already starting to bruise from the diabetes

Ask students what are some ways Americans pay taxes, as in income tax and sales tax. Undocumented immigrants pay taxes every time they buy gas, clothes or new appliances. They also contribute to property taxes—a main source of school funding—when they buy or rent a house, or rent an apartment. The Social Security Administration estimates that half to three-quarters of undocumented immigrants pay federal, state and local taxes, including $6 billion to $7 billion in Social Security taxes for benefits they will never get. They can receive schooling and emergency medical care, but not welfare or food stamps.

http://www.tolerance.org/immigration-myths

Illegal immigrants actually contribute massively (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/do-illegal-immigrants-actually-hurt-the-us-economy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) to the welfare pot without taking any out.

but there's no money to be made in taking an honest approach and having some humility, when you can just extract reparations with guilt tripping.
I don't quite get your point here.

---

edit: Note, I typed this up before I was about to got to bed, so if it's rambly or incomprehensible in portions I can re-write said portions.