• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is there such a thing as anti-white racism?

Is there such a thing as anti-white racism?

  • Total voters
    86
sangha said:
You spelled "scientific" wrong
Click to expand...
It should be spelled "funding-friendly." As long as it humiliates Whites and discredits their achievement, those who hold economic and political power over the majority will throw money at mud-slinging.
 
PrometheusBound said:
It should be spelled "funding-friendly." As long as it humiliates Whites and discredits their achievement, those who hold economic and political power over the majority will throw money at mud-slinging.
Click to expand...

So to summarize, your position is that the government and economy are secretly controlled by a conspiracy of minorities who use that power to force scientists to humiliate whites by publishing studies that say that they have not found a biological basis for race. Is that an accurate summary of your position?

Follow up question- Do you consider yourself a danger to yourself or others?
 
So Luna Tick:

Point blank: why did you start this thread, framing a factual question as if it were a matter of opinion?
 
cmakaioz said:
So Luna Tick:

Point blank: why did you start this thread, framing a factual question as if it were a matter of opinion?
Click to expand...

Obviously, many people think it is a matter of opinion.
 
Luna Tick said:
Obviously, many people think it is a matter of opinion.
Click to expand...

Absolutely all those who do so...are wrong. Why cater to them? Why unnecessarily concede such ground to the unreasonable?

If you were posting a thread on geography, would you take a poll on "Is the earth flat?" as if it were a matter of opinion?

The danger in this is sort of like the false legitimacy which rubs off (at least superficially) on creationists when an actual scientist makes the mistake of agreeing to a "debate" with them; conditioned by memes of fairness and of "hearing 'both sides'" on an issue, many in an audience unconsciously come to treat a completely baseless position as having at least SOME merit where there is none...simply by being put next to or pitted against a substantive position.
 
PrometheusBound said:
It should be spelled "funding-friendly." As long as it humiliates Whites and discredits their achievement, those who hold economic and political power over the majority will throw money at mud-slinging.
Click to expand...

Lets face it there's a whitist subculture that thoroughly asks for and deserves humiliation at every turn on a daily basis.
 
cmakaioz said:
Absolutely all those who do so...are wrong. Why cater to them? Why unnecessarily concede such ground to the unreasonable?

If you were posting a thread on geography, would you take a poll on "Is the earth flat?" as if it were a matter of opinion?

The danger in this is sort of like the false legitimacy which rubs off (at least superficially) on creationists when an actual scientist makes the mistake of agreeing to a "debate" with them; conditioned by memes of fairness and of "hearing 'both sides'" on an issue, many in an audience unconsciously come to treat a completely baseless position as having at least SOME merit where there is none...simply by being put next to or pitted against a substantive position.
Click to expand...

I don't think that talking about it automatically lends legitimacy to a position. On one of the other boards here there's a thread on whether or not we landed on the moon. I think it's an indisputable scientific fact that we did. However, there are conspiracy nuts anyway, and they have some arguments that might sound convincing to someone who doesn't know the facts. I didn't start that thread, but I don't believe that the existence of the thread in any way legitimizes conspiracy nuts.

The the racism thing, it's also a little different. Those arguing that racism is a white phenomenon are usually splitting hairs over definitions so that only institutional racism counts. Even if we went with that definition (an unreasonable one IMO) there's still institutional racism in Japan against whites and others. We can still find examples of anti-white racism. The idea that racism is a white only thing is thoroughly discredited. I think a lot of people in this thread have done a great job of discrediting it. I don't believe this thread has helped to legitimize it.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Lets face it there's a whitist subculture that thoroughly asks for and deserves humiliation at every turn on a daily basis.
Click to expand...

Those who inherit their power are brought up to despise the majority. To soothe their conscience, they have to fantasize evils that make the majority look morally inferior. This gives them free rein to make the majority politically and economically inferior.
 
Luna Tick said:
I don't think that talking about it automatically lends legitimacy to a position.
Click to expand...

I didn't contend that it did. What I pointed out is that framing a factual matter as if it is a matter of opinion may end up giving unearned credence to a baseless position.

Luna Tick said:
The the racism thing, it's also a little different. Those arguing that racism is a white phenomenon are usually splitting hairs over definitions so that only institutional racism counts.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a case of multiple counts of sloppy thinking and writing. Some people drop important qualifiers in a phrase or sentence, whether when writing it themselves, or when reading the sentences of others. I run into it all the time. For example, I frequently make the case that overturning white supremacy is the responsibility of "white" people because they are both its beneficiaries as well as its source of maintenance (it makes no sense at all for people of color to seek out or establish white supremacy). White supremacy persists because most "white" people allow it to, by neglect, by active support, or some combination of the two. Institutionalized racism comprises most of what makes up white supremacy, and accounts for most of the damage from it.

Having said/written all that, there are some sloppy readers/thinkers out there who will -- falsely -- end up reading that and asserting that this amounts to dismissing individual/ideological racism as unimportant.

Luna Tick said:
Even if we went with that definition (an unreasonable one IMO)
Click to expand...

While if that was the definition someone ACTUALLY worked from, it would be unreasonable...I've met practically no one -- once you dig deeper with some follow-up questions -- who genuinely believes that personal/ideological racism doesn't matter at all. Being recognized as less influential than institutional racism is not the same thing as being dismissed outright as unimportant or (worse yet) nonexistent.

Luna Tick said:
there's still institutional racism in Japan against whites and others. We can still find examples of anti-white racism. The idea that racism is a white only thing is thoroughly discredited.
Click to expand...

My main point earlier is that the claim for or against the existence and operation of antiwhite racism...is NOT a matter of opinion in the first place.

Luna Tick said:
I think a lot of people in this thread have done a great job of discrediting it. I don't believe this thread has helped to legitimize it.
Click to expand...

The thread per se hasn't done any significant harm...but I'd argue that framing matters of fact as if they were matters of opinion does real harm. Such a framing looks a whole lot like a thinly veiled emotive appeal where a more straightforward reliance upon facts and empirical definition would suffice (while avoiding the yelling-match game of seeing who can endure a rhetorical pissing contest the longest).

I remain deeply suspicious of the motivation for creating this thread by starting it with a poll, since -- in about 25 years of working in antiracism circles -- pushing some flavor of the "but there's racism against 'white' people too!" has almost always been part of some larger effort to ignore the fact that racism privileging white folks far outweighs the rare cases of racism working against "whites."

While we're at it, every once in a long while, governments do something which disproportionately inconveniences rich people...but that's not the usual situation, is it?
 
cmakaioz said:
I remain deeply suspicious of the motivation for creating this thread by starting it with a poll, since -- in about 25 years of working in antiracism circles -- pushing some flavor of the "but there's racism against 'white' people too!" has almost always been part of some larger effort to ignore the fact that racism privileging white folks far outweighs the rare cases of racism working against "whites."
Click to expand...

That might be some people's motive, but it's not mine. Racism working against whites is not rare in Hawaii at all. The racism there is blatant and evil. It often results in violence. When kids get assaulted at school for their race, that's not something to take lightly just because the mainland has a lot of racism that benefits whites. The point is racism is ugly and it stinks no matter what race is being attacked.

You'll never find me justifying racism against blacks or Hispanics or Chinese just because anti-white racism exists.
 
Luna Tick said:
That might be some people's motive, but it's not mine. Racism working against whites is not rare in Hawaii at all. The racism there is blatant and evil. It often results in violence. When kids get assaulted at school for their race, that's not something to take lightly just because the mainland has a lot of racism that benefits whites. The point is racism is ugly and it stinks no matter what race is being attacked.

You'll never find me justifying racism against blacks or Hispanics or Chinese just because anti-white racism exists.
Click to expand...

There is indeed plenty of anti-white racism in Hawai'i...on the individual/ideological level. What there is not, however, is racist oppression against "whites" in Hawai'i. This is exactly the kind of risk of losing perspective I'm concerned with.

If one mentions antiwhite racism in Hawai'i and just leaves it at that, then it is viewed largely as an irrational, bigoted, pathetic form of pathology (which of course IT IS).

However, if one mentions antiwhite racism in Hawai'i and then includes basic context -- like the fact that white imperialists invaded Hawai'i and took it over through an alliance among businessmen, missionaries, and U.S. military forces, or that Kanaka Maoli are today the poorest and least powerful people in Hawai'i at the bottom of most indices of personal and community health -- then antiwhite racism in Hawai'i is still correctly viewed as pathological and irrational, but the far, far larger systemic problem of racist oppression against nonwhites and against the indigenous population in particular grounds one's understanding of the situation in historical reality. This context actually offers practical directions for possible construction answers to antiwhite racism -- namely, personal and systemic recognition of the imperial/colonial situation -- as opposed to keeping things couched in personal terms (in which case the racism involved -- in any direction -- is falsely confined to notions of personal irrationalities).

This is NOT to suggest or imply that one must refrain from discussing antiwhite racism in its own right (imposing a presumptive requirement that racist oppression privileging whites must always be mentioned), but instead to point out that antiwhite racism in Hawai'i is not some random bizarre thing which popped into existence out of nowhere...it has a clear historical and reactive cause.

On a personal note, through my mother's side of the family I am descended from Hawai'ian nobility. Were it not for the U.S. conquest of Hawai'i and the subsequent waves of missionaries and businessmen stealing property and demolishing communities, my mother's side of the family would still hold substantial land in Hawai'i. I look "white" myself and so that's how I get treated, and I've found that when I am in Hawai'i some basic cultural competency goes a long way, but of course one will always encounter at least a few people who just don't get it, or who have lost the ability to distinguish between group and individual. In the larger scheme of things, however, I recognized, and still recognize, that my occasional personal inconvenience as a "white" person in a conquered/occupied colonial state is dwarfed by my privilege there. As De La Rocha of RATM once summarized the colonizer's orientation to the conquered land:

we'll kill them off
take their land
and go their for vacation

While I'm pretty sure neither of us has personally killed off any native population, any "white" person visiting or living in Hawai'i still has all kinds of political and social privileges nonwhites can only dream of. This doesn't excuse antiwhite racism, but some sense of proportion and humility is definitely called for.
 
cmakaioz said:
There is indeed plenty of anti-white racism in Hawai'i...on the individual/ideological level. What there is not, however, is racist oppression against "whites" in Hawai'i. This is exactly the kind of risk of losing perspective I'm concerned with.

If one mentions antiwhite racism in Hawai'i and just leaves it at that, then it is viewed largely as an irrational, bigoted, pathetic form of pathology (which of course IT IS).

However, if one mentions antiwhite racism in Hawai'i and then includes basic context -- like the fact that white imperialists invaded Hawai'i and took it over through an alliance among businessmen, missionaries, and U.S. military forces, or that Kanaka Maoli are today the poorest and least powerful people in Hawai'i at the bottom of most indices of personal and community health -- then antiwhite racism in Hawai'i is still correctly viewed as pathological and irrational, but the far, far larger systemic problem of racist oppression against nonwhites and against the indigenous population in particular grounds one's understanding of the situation in historical reality. This context actually offers practical directions for possible construction answers to antiwhite racism -- namely, personal and systemic recognition of the imperial/colonial situation -- as opposed to keeping things couched in personal terms (in which case the racism involved -- in any direction -- is falsely confined to notions of personal irrationalities).

This is NOT to suggest or imply that one must refrain from discussing antiwhite racism in its own right (imposing a presumptive requirement that racist oppression privileging whites must always be mentioned), but instead to point out that antiwhite racism in Hawai'i is not some random bizarre thing which popped into existence out of nowhere...it has a clear historical and reactive cause.

On a personal note, through my mother's side of the family I am descended from Hawai'ian nobility. Were it not for the U.S. conquest of Hawai'i and the subsequent waves of missionaries and businessmen stealing property and demolishing communities, my mother's side of the family would still hold substantial land in Hawai'i. I look "white" myself and so that's how I get treated, and I've found that when I am in Hawai'i some basic cultural competency goes a long way, but of course one will always encounter at least a few people who just don't get it, or who have lost the ability to distinguish between group and individual. In the larger scheme of things, however, I recognized, and still recognize, that my occasional personal inconvenience as a "white" person in a conquered/occupied colonial state is dwarfed by my privilege there. As De La Rocha of RATM once summarized the colonizer's orientation to the conquered land:

we'll kill them off
take their land
and go their for vacation

While I'm pretty sure neither of us has personally killed off any native population, any "white" person visiting or living in Hawai'i still has all kinds of political and social privileges nonwhites can only dream of. This doesn't excuse antiwhite racism, but some sense of proportion and humility is definitely called for.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? You sound like many others defending native Americans or blacks that pretend that the current (not them) population, based only on race/ethnic origin is responsible for not 'righting' past 'wrongs' done by others. That is racimsm (or prejudice) in its purest form, "if you are not with us, then you are against us" nonsense. Even if my great, great, great...grandfather (you get the picture) did have a tie to these actions it has no bearing on me at all. Get over it, or you will be consumed by it. Those that are content to sit by, ignorant and happy with whatever gov't handouts that they can get, in fact, deserve to be in that position. Go to school, get a job and make a difference! I see many mega-rich, star athletes (or entertainers) that do nothing for their 'roots' yet complain when others do not 'help the hood'.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Are you kidding me?
Click to expand...

I'm dead serious. Unfortunately, you failed to read my post correctly.

ttwtt78640 said:
You sound like many others defending native Americans or blacks that pretend that the current (not them) population, based only on race/ethnic origin is responsible for not 'righting' past 'wrongs' done by others.
Click to expand...

You're completely misreading this. I don't call upon myself or anyone else to take responsibility for acts they had no personal part in.

I DO, however, call upon myself and other "white" people to take responsibility for the unearned privileges they accept RIGHT NOW, TODAY, and the acceptance of stolen and unearned wealth -- both material and social -- they continue to accept possession and use of RIGHT NOW, TODAY. We absolutely can do something about that, and to the extent that we fail to do so (either by ignorance or by complacency), we are rightfully identified as responsible for maintaining the unjust dominant order of white supremacy. TODAY.

If you can't see or hear that clearly, you will remain incapable of accurately understanding my position, just as algebra seems to be gibberish to someone who doesn't understand the concept of the variable.

ttwtt78640 said:
Even if my great, great, great...grandfather (you get the picture) did have a tie to these actions it has no bearing on me at all.
Click to expand...

Oh really?!? So absolutely no one in your family passed down their property, their social status, their skills, the legacy of their ability to get a higher education or work in a profession? Not the slightest hint of benefit from their social or work connections? Not the slightest influence from their access to health care, to buying a home, or -- for that matter -- one or more generations of being treated at least somewhat substantively as an individual rather than as an imagined template of their "race", sex, religion, or nationality?

The incredulity you are expressing speaks to the very heart of white privilege; racist oppression doesn't just systematically harm nonwhites unfairly...it also systematically privileges "white" folk unfairly.

I completely get that you personally don't intend any special harm to nonwhites...but white privilege doesn't ask permission. Whether you like it or not -- and whether you asked for it or not -- if you are treated as "white" in a context of white supremacy (which IS what we are living under) -- then you ARE privileged. Intention has nothing to do with it. You may choose to accept such privilege without a thought, you may struggle against it mightily, you may use your privilege to expose the privilege itself or not, etc., but no amount or type of intention in its own right will undo that privilege.

ttwtt78640 said:
Get over it, or you will be consumed by it. Those that are content to sit by, ignorant and happy with whatever gov't handouts that they can get, in fact, deserve to be in that position. Go to school, get a job and make a difference! I see many mega-rich, star athletes (or entertainers) that do nothing for their 'roots' yet complain when others do not 'help the hood'.
Click to expand...

This is incoherent, irrelevant nonsense without even a tangential relationship to the topic.
 
Last edited:
cmakaioz said:
I'm dead serious. Unfortunately, you failed to read my post correctly.



You're completely misreading this. I don't call upon myself or anyone else to take responsibility for acts they had no personal part in.

I DO, however, call upon myself and other "white" people to take responsibility for the unearned privileges they accept RIGHT NOW, TODAY, and the acceptance of stolen and unearned wealth -- both material and social -- they continue to accept possession and use of RIGHT NOW, TODAY. We absolutely can do something about that, and to the extent that we fail to do so (either by ignorance or by complacency), we are rightfully identified as responsible for maintaining the unjust dominant order of white supremacy. TODAY.

If you can't see or hear that clearly, you will remain incapable of accurately understanding my position, just as algebra seems to be gibberish to someone who doesn't understand the concept of the variable.



Oh really?!? So absolutely no one in your family passed down their property, their social status, their skills, the legacy of their ability to get a higher education or work in a profession? Not the slightest hint of benefit from their social or work connections? Not the slightest influence from their access to health care, to buying a home, or -- for that matter -- one or more generations of being treated at least somewhat substantively as an individual rather than as an imagined template of their "race", sex, religion, or nationality?

The incredulity you are expressing speaks to the very heart of white privilege; racist oppression doesn't just systematically harm nonwhites unfairly...it also systematically privileges "white" folk unfairly.

I completely get that you personally don't intend any special harm to nonwhites...but white privilege doesn't ask permission. Whether you like it or not -- and whether you asked for it or not -- if you are treated as "white" in a context of white supremacy (which IS what we are living under) -- then you ARE privileged. Intention has nothing to do with it. You may choose to accept such privilege without a thought, you may struggle against it mightily, you may use your privilege to expose the privilege itself or not, etc., but no amount or type of intention in its own right will undo that privilege.



This is incoherent, irrelevant nonsense without even a tangential relationship to the topic.
Click to expand...

Neither my father nor my mother inherited any such 'privileges', except your imagined privilege of being born poor and white. My father was born in 1922 and lived poor near Omaha, NE until he dropped out of school and joined the U.S. army, later fought in WWII, Korea and Vietnam, my mother was born in 1919 and lived poor in San Antonio, TX, until the death of her father (she was then age 9), then shipped off to live with an aunt in FL, eventually worked as filing/typing clerk in DC war office during WWII. My parents met in 1950, near DC, married and had three children, we then moved around the world and country a bit, as service families do. My parents inherited no money or property at all, as I am unlikey too either. What little they have, they have earned, have harmed no one in the process, have served their country well and owe no such debt as a result, nor do I. If you feel guilty, then perhaps you are. I feel no guilt or debt for any past sins, real or imagined, of others before me in my family.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Neither my father nor my mother inherited any such 'privileges', except your imagined privilege of being born poor and white.
Click to expand...

Being poor and "white" is a demonstrably, consistently better situation than being poor and nonwhite. White privilege doesn't mean "white" folk are immune to mistreatment or oppression on OTHER axes through OTHER aspects of their identity. Rather, it means that holding other things equal, "white" people are better off than nonwhites.

You continue to respond to stances I don't hold, suggestions I haven't made, etc., instead of what I've actually posted.

Being the target of class oppression doesn't make privilege on another axis ("race") magically go away. This isn't about FEELING oppressed or FEELING privileged, but about the factual, concrete conditions.

ttwtt78640 said:
[a bunch of irrelevant filler omitted...]

I feel no guilt or debt for any past sins, real or imagined, of others before me in my family.
Click to expand...

Call back when you decide to read what's actually in front of you. I never suggested that you -- or anyone -- should feel guilty about or try to fix what they have no hand in. In fact, if/when you actually read my post correctly, you'll discover that I explicitly stated as much, and directed my attention to the present tense.

Have a nice life.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Neither my father nor my mother inherited any such 'privileges', except your imagined privilege of being born poor and white. My father was born in 1922 and lived poor near Omaha, NE until he dropped out of school and joined the U.S. army, later fought in WWII, Korea and Vietnam, my mother was born in 1919 and lived poor in San Antonio, TX, until the death of her father (she was then age 9), then shipped off to live with an aunt in FL, eventually worked as filing/typing clerk in DC war office during WWII. My parents met in 1950, near DC, married and had three children, we then moved around the world and country a bit, as service families do. My parents inherited no money or property at all, as I am unlikey too either. What little they have, they have earned, have harmed no one in the process, have served their country well and owe no such debt as a result, nor do I. If you feel guilty, then perhaps you are. I feel no guilt or debt for any past sins, real or imagined, of others before me in my family.
Click to expand...

Outstanding post. Thank you. What it boils down to is people attempting to use historical context to not take anti-white racism seriously. The racism in Hawaii I was speaking of was white students being harassed and assaulted because of their race. It even involved some of their lives being put in danger. Of course that's serious. I've seen the situation poo-pooed and justified because of the injustices Native Hawaiians had to endure. Like you I did not have any wealth or privilege. I was lower middle class. I was simply the member of a Navy family. When my dad was transferred there, I had no choice but to go. As a result, I endured tremendous hate and assaults and accusations of "You stole our land." Logic was useless. If I explained that since I don't own any land in Hawaii and I never have, it's logically impossible for me to have stolen anyone's land, it just further inflamed the situation. In a nutshell, people blamed innocent people for historical events that they have no control over. That's injustice, and no amount of looking to history can justify it. It's a case of "Two wrongs don't make a right." It's a case where the Native Hawaiians were ruthlessly exploited by a wealthy white bourgeois class and then some of their descendants attack anyone with white skin, people who had nothing to do with the original injustice.

Who I really respect is Rodney King. Her was personally attacked by racists, and those racists were let off the hook. It wasn't just his ancestors who were brutalized. However, when the LA riots happened, he responded with the eloquent, "Can't we all just get along?" That was so simple, yet so moving and so true. He was saying he didn't want anyone else of any color to get hurt. He knew the beating of Reginald Denny was not justified payback for what happened to him. It was simply an additional injustice. Yes, the '92 LA riots didn't happen in a vacuum. You'd better believe there was a long and ugly history that lead to them. However, in spite of all that, King had the wisdom to understand that additional injustice was not the answer. Anti-white racism is not the antidote to anti-black racism. The antidote is for everyone to make an honest effort to get along and to set things up so that everyone has a chance at a good life. You give everyone a chance to prosper and you don't accept excuses for any kind of racism.
 
Luna Tick said:
I met a Hispanic guy online whose views I found troubling. He blamed the Jews for a lot of things such as corporate irresponsibility. He blamed the bank bailouts on the Jews. My best friend from high school was Jewish, and I'm pretty sure she wasn't scheming in the back of a synagogue on how to control all the banks so that she could rip everyone off.The man had the attitude that North America belongs to Mexicans, Native Americans, and no one else. He seemed to equate Mexico as a Native American tribe that had been abused by the white man (Americans). Do I have my history wrong? I thought Mexico was a North American country with European roots (in Spain) just like the United States has roots in England and Canada has roots in England and France. By far the most troubling thing he said was that all blacks should go back to Africa and all whites should go back to Europe. To me that sounds like a racist statement against both black people and white people. Do you agree?

Btw, I'm white, but I didn't come here from Europe. I was born here. Almost everyone I know who's black was also born here. And I think his history is wrong. Mexico is not a Native American tribe.
Click to expand...

It is deeply disturbing to behold the minority who seems to believe that he is immune from accusations of racism, merely because of his minority status.
 
Luna Tick said:
Outstanding post. Thank you. What it boils down to is people attempting to use historical context to not take anti-white racism seriously.
Click to expand...

That hasn't happened HERE, so what are you talking about?

Luna Tick said:
The racism in Hawaii I was speaking of was white students being harassed and assaulted because of their race. It even involved some of their lives being put in danger. Of course that's serious. I've seen the situation poo-pooed and justified because of the injustices Native Hawaiians had to endure. Like you I did not have any wealth or privilege.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Being poor doesn't negate white privilege. Being rich doesn't negate being targeted by racist oppression.

Luna Tick said:
I was lower middle class.
Click to expand...

OK...now imagine being lower middle class...and nonwhite.

Luna Tick said:
I was simply the member of a Navy family. When my dad was transferred there, I had no choice but to go. As a result, I endured tremendous hate and assaults and accusations of "You stole our land." Logic was useless. If I explained that since I don't own any land in Hawaii and I never have, it's logically impossible for me to have stolen anyone's land, it just further inflamed the situation. In a nutshell, people blamed innocent people for historical events that they have no control over. That's injustice, and no amount of looking to history can justify it.
Click to expand...

Congratulations. The only catch is that no one here is attempting to justify it.

Luna Tick said:
It's a case of "Two wrongs don't make a right." It's a case where the Native Hawaiians were ruthlessly exploited by a wealthy white bourgeois class and then some of their descendants attack anyone with white skin, people who had nothing to do with the original injustice.
Click to expand...

Luna Tick said:
Who I really respect is Rodney King. He was personally attacked by racists, and those racists were let off the hook. It wasn't just his ancestors who were brutalized. However, when the LA riots happened, he responded with the eloquent, "Can't we all just get along?" That was so simple, yet so moving and so true. He was saying he didn't want anyone else of any color to get hurt. He knew the beating of Reginald Denny was not justified payback for what happened to him. It was simply an additional injustice. Yes, the '92 LA riots didn't happen in a vacuum. You'd better believe there was a long and ugly history that lead to them. However, in spite of all that, King had the wisdom to understand that additional injustice was not the answer. Anti-white racism is not the antidote to anti-black racism.
Click to expand...

Try not to break your lance on all those windmills.

Luna Tick said:
The antidote is for everyone to make an honest effort to get along and to set things up so that everyone has a chance at a good life. You give everyone a chance to prosper and you don't accept excuses for any kind of racism.
Click to expand...

None have been offered here.
 
Luna Tick said:
Outstanding post. Thank you. What it boils down to is people attempting to use historical context to not take anti-white racism seriously. The racism in Hawaii I was speaking of was white students being harassed and assaulted because of their race. It even involved some of their lives being put in danger. Of course that's serious. I've seen the situation poo-pooed and justified because of the injustices Native Hawaiians had to endure. Like you I did not have any wealth or privilege. I was lower middle class. I was simply the member of a Navy family. When my dad was transferred there, I had no choice but to go. As a result, I endured tremendous hate and assaults and accusations of "You stole our land." Logic was useless. If I explained that since I don't own any land in Hawaii and I never have, it's logically impossible for me to have stolen anyone's land, it just further inflamed the situation. In a nutshell, people blamed innocent people for historical events that they have no control over. That's injustice, and no amount of looking to history can justify it. It's a case of "Two wrongs don't make a right." It's a case where the Native Hawaiians were ruthlessly exploited by a wealthy white bourgeois class and then some of their descendants attack anyone with white skin, people who had nothing to do with the original injustice.

Who I really respect is Rodney King. Her was personally attacked by racists, and those racists were let off the hook. It wasn't just his ancestors who were brutalized. However, when the LA riots happened, he responded with the eloquent, "Can't we all just get along?" That was so simple, yet so moving and so true. He was saying he didn't want anyone else of any color to get hurt. He knew the beating of Reginald Denny was not justified payback for what happened to him. It was simply an additional injustice. Yes, the '92 LA riots didn't happen in a vacuum. You'd better believe there was a long and ugly history that lead to them. However, in spite of all that, King had the wisdom to understand that additional injustice was not the answer. Anti-white racism is not the antidote to anti-black racism. The antidote is for everyone to make an honest effort to get along and to set things up so that everyone has a chance at a good life. You give everyone a chance to prosper and you don't accept excuses for any kind of racism.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your response. I worked for the U.S. Navy as a communications computer programmer/analyst for over 22 years, have been to Oahu several times and lived in Guam for 3 years as the western Pacific site technical representative. The situation that you describe existed when I was there as well. It is sad that rather than see others as simply innocent visitors, too many simply consider all that are not "of them" to be "against them". The Guamanian locals, the Chamoros, were not so, at least towards the U.S., perhaps because they were occupied by Japan in WWII and really appreciate their liberation, but did express some dislike for some other asian ethnic groups. It was strange to feel more "at home" in a territory than in a state. ;-)
 
Last edited:
Sig said:
It is deeply disturbing to behold the minority who seems to believe that he is immune from accusations of racism, merely because of his minority status.
Click to expand...

That attitude is not uncommon. Some assert that to be racist you must be of the race in power, but that is hair splitting, IMHO. The difference between a racist and an ethnic/religious bigot is not worth making any distinction. If you have prejudice, it simply does not matter what 'justifies' it. I still see many whites that will use a racial slur based on dress or 'style', yet the same person in a suit or uniform would be OK with them, strange but true.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Thank you for your response. I worked for the U.S. Navy as a communications computer programmer/analyst for over 22 years, have been to Oahu several times and lived in Guam for 3 years as the western Pacific site technical representative. The situation that you describe existed when I was there as well. It is sad that rather than see others as simply innocent visitors, too many simply consider all that are not "of them" to be "against them". The Guamanian locals, the Chamoros, were not so, at least towards the U.S., perhaps because they were occupied by Japan in WWII and really appreciate their liberation, but did express some dislike for some other asian ethnic groups. It was strange to feel more "at home" in a territory than in a state. ;-)
Click to expand...

I visited Guam and loved it there. People were really friendly and didn't care that I'm white and have auburn hair. Some of the racist attacks in Hawaii, believe it or not, included hostility toward my hair color. I agree with you. I felt better respected in Guam than in Hawaii.

You did a great job rebutting the nonsense of "white privilege" in Hawaii.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That attitude is not uncommon. Some assert that to be racist you must be of the race in power, but that is hair splitting, IMHO. The difference between a racist and an ethnic/religious bigot is not worth making any distinction. If you have prejudice, it simply does not matter what 'justifies' it. I still see many whites that will use a racial slur based on dress or 'style', yet the same person in a suit or uniform would be OK with them, strange but true.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the "racism is necessarily a function of power" ethos has been imbedded into the psyches of every member of every minority group, real or imagined, thanks to a largely unchallenged stream of popular and global indoctrination over the last 40 years.

Now, we have large swaths of people, all around the world, who think of themselves as a necessarily victimized "minority," in one sense or the other, while maintaining a very feeble internal psychic mechanism for checking their own racist impulses; which are, in actual etiology, much more primally driven instincts than products of personal experience at the hands of some racially oppressive and largely abstract monolith of power.

This is bad.
 
Sig said:
Unfortunately, the "racism is necessarily a function of power" ethos has been imbedded into the psyches of every member of every minority group, real or imagined, thanks to a largely unchallenged stream of popular and global indoctrination over the last 40 years.
Click to expand...

One need not be in power to harbor or act upon racist ideology. One does have to have political power, however, to participate in racist oppression.

Sig said:
Now, we have large swaths of people, all around the world, who think of themselves as a necessarily victimized "minority," in one sense or the other, while maintaining a very feeble internal psychic mechanism for checking their own racist impulses; which are, in actual etiology, much more primally driven instincts than products of personal experience at the hands of some racially oppressive and largely abstract monolith of power.

This is bad.
Click to expand...

Racism is indeed bad, but it's neither universal nor impulsive. It is widely taught. Institutionalized practices, on the other hand, do not require ideological commitment for their impact.

And yet here we are, already poised on the edge of where I expected the thread to go: it was framed as a nonsensical opinion poll about a factual matter, and within a short time it has already turned to a growing case of denial of obvious privilege, promotion of implied false equivalency, serial intellectual dishonesty (in preemptively "responding" to claims never made, and projection of stances and views not actually held by posters participating in the thread).

I've seen this movie a thousand times.
 
3 people said no...it appears there are three members on this forum who are racist against white people.
 
Lakryte said:
3 people said no...it appears there are three members on this forum who are racist against white people.
Click to expand...

Nah. It's a very close question really. Technically, does it exist in the small r sense of "racism" to mean hostility towards somebody on the basis of the color of their skin, yes. Absolutely it does.

But, does it exist in the big, sociological, societal, sense of white people being oppressed because of the color of their skin? Of course not. Very much the opposite. Does it exist in a meaningful way where we should be seriously concerned about it? Or is it just a distraction from the real problem of racism against blacks and Hispanics? Obviously it's just a distraction.

Personally I haven't voted because IMO the question is ambiguous. You could interpret it either way, so either answer could be correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom