With this attitude, things will not end well:
I have to wonder what the political left thinks of the blatant racism. Will they demand divestment like they did because of apartheid in South Africa 40 to 60 years ago? Or will they cheer the hatred, confiscation of property, and the murders?
All commies are subhuman vermin.
To be explicit (for the people who will claim that is racist because this *particular* example is one of the races they treat well instead of the one of the races they treat poorly): That is true *regardless* of the race or sex of the commie.
You already know the answer. The racist socialists running today’s democrat party will cheer as South Africans of color rape, kill, pillage and burn their way through the South Africans of pallor. Never mind that the descendants of Afrikaans speaking Dutch settlers actually have been living in South Africa longer than the Bantu and Zulu invaders from Central Africa who slaughtered the native Hottentot tribes wholesale until European settlers stopped them with hot lead.
Of course we know that – they’ve already demonstrated it in Zimbabwe.
And what does it matter how long they’ve been there? White people haven’t been in EUROPE long enough for the racist commies and statists to defend them from the invading non-white people. The statists, lefties, and commies have decided that all white people are bad, were born bad, and are identifiable as bad *because they are white*.
They say this publicly and regularly. And they say anyone who disagrees with them on it is racist. “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
And who were those communist thought leaders that decided whites, and particularly white Christians, were bad?
But that’s not racism. The speaker isn’t saying white people are inferior based on their race, she’s saying that “you came and took all our shit, and now we’re taking it back.” The fact that the colonizers who did all the pillaging were white and their victims black doesn’t imply racism if the black people want their stuff back.
She directs the hate to all whites regardless of their lack of contribution to any theft.
But that’s not an indication she thinks whites are inferior, it’s an indication she views all whites as colonists.
I’m stuck with the old school definition of racism: the belief that people of other races are inferior to your own. If actions are against a group of people based on their race, that could be racism (e.g. you don’t want black people using the same water fountains as white people because you think them inferior), or it could just be conveniently using race as a lazy proxy for people you think have done you wrong (e.g. you don’t want white people in south africa because you think they all contributed or benefit from colonialism). The latter makes no assertion of inferiority.
“But that’s not an indication she thinks whites are inferior, it’s an indication she views all whites as colonists. ”
Under any circumstances of white people making claims even vaguely like that, you would not require any claim of “inferiority” to call it racism.
In fact, “disparate impact” theory calls stuff racist PURELY for difference in outcome, with no malice of any kind from ANYONE required, and the left has been hugely supportive of that (as long as the supposed “victim” isn’t white, of course).
Non-white person spewing vile stuff at white people? The left will bend over backwards and tie itself in insane knots to come up with any justification.
White person saying anything that can be interpreted as racist by any definition and any level of insanity and/or bad faith? That’s what they left will run with.
Here you are, following the usual bad faith, dishonest pattern.
““disparate impact” theory calls stuff racist PURELY for difference in outcome, with no malice of any kind from ANYONE required”
That’s not a valid definition of racism, that’s just libs being dumb. I get that there are libs who want to argue that, but they’re dumb. Racism by any logical definition has to include the concept of inferiority, or we’re no longer using words in a sensible way.
“Racism by any logical definition has to include the concept of inferiority, or we’re no longer using words in a sensible way.”
1) then “racism” hasn’t been used in many sensible ways in living memory.
2) No, that is just factually wrong. Treating people differently *by race* is, by any sensible reading of the term and construction of the term, “race-ism”. Conveniently, that also matches legal definitions of the term. Certainly there were multiple attempts at supporting segregation without any inherent claims of inferiority (yes, they were in bad faith, but that was not required) that did not survive legal review.
You are trying to bolt-on extra requirements that you would and have not when the shoe was on the other foot.
Merriam Webster entry says:
“a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race”
The wikipedia entry starts with:
“Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to inherited attributes and can be divided based on the superiority of one race or ethnicity over another.”
Britannica says:
“racism, the belief that humans may be divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called “races”; that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural and behavioral features; and that some races are innately superior to others.”
etc.
And, as usual, you are dishonestly selective in your choices.
ALSO Miriam Webster:
the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another
Notice, no requirement of “inferiority” or “superiority”.
And of course, you completely ignored me pointing out all the actions that are called “racism” by the left every stinking day that ALSO have no such requirement.
You do not argue in good faith. It’s tiresome.
I do so hate to fatigue you. But we’re in violent agreement that many on the left try to redefine racism to mean whatever’s convenient for them. I’m arguing that’s not the historical meaning, and I think you are too.
I will agree that some kind of superiority/inferiority claim was common to the point of normal until the last several decades. It is still not rare today.
But I would still point out that it is not vital to the definition, and historical examples do exist of what would clearly be called “racism” even some decades ago that posit simply that the races are inherently different in significant ways and should be kept apart or expected to mostly exist apart due to those inherent and significant differences.
That is, that relatively benign racism conflates culture and genetics, which is still quite common among racists today, but it makes no claims about which is “superior”.
I would like to suggest that a minority race intent on committing genocide of the majority race because the minority race fears the majority race is superior in some regard, (say IQ, business/communication/persuasion skills) and will dominate the population is being racist. In general, treating individuals according to the racial set they belong to, rather than according to the behaviors of that individual, is racist.
“the minority race fears the majority race is superior in some regard,”
I didn’t get that from the video. Where’s that coming from?
“In general, treating individuals according to the racial set they belong to, rather than according to the behaviors of that individual, is racist.”
By that logic isn’t it then a problem to treat any group by any group feature discriminatory? Race, gender, disability, etc. Does every person have to be treated as an individual, or can we address group needs at the group level? It would seem to me that under this logic treating you differently based on your observable group means I now have to stop making special dispensation for women or the handicapped as well.
Treating women differently isn’t sexist unless the treatment is damaging. Treating the disabled and elderly differently isn’t ableist or ageist unless said treatment is damaging. There are lots of ways we treat groups of people positively based on their race, gender, disability, age, etc. Doing those things doesn’t make us racist, sexist, etc.
“Racism” as a word should, IMHO, continue to be used as a pejorative, not a category identifier. But sadly I don’t run the world, so you’re all free to keep using it however you like….
Fine, it’s not racism, it’s hate driven by envy, and they envy those who can do things they can’t, and they know who to envy because of skin color. That makes it totally OK, right?
No, not ok. Not the racism in the first place, not the using of the word “racism” to tar people who aren’t racist with a pejorative. I’m entirely on board with the notion that many far left liberals have RDS – race derangement syndrome – and see everything through that lens when other approaches would be far more accurate and productive.
“By that logic isn’t it then a problem to treat any group by any group feature discriminatory? Race, gender, disability, etc.”
Movie quote: “Welcome to the party, pal!” That has already been the standard FOR DECADES.
Any kind of group treatment gets “heightened scrutiny” or whatever legal term. They CAN be justified (men and women are actually, physically different, so in some setting different treatment is justified – different racial groups have different medical risk profiles), but they get a hard look and the bar is (supposed to be) high.
“Does every person have to be treated as an individual, or can we address group needs at the group level?”
YES PLEASE. That would solve a LOT of problems.
Unfortunately, I don’t expect it to ever happen, for many reasons.
“There are lots of ways we treat groups of people positively based on their race, gender, disability, age, etc.”
And nearly every single one was thrown out in court… at least, if the beneficiary was white or male. The argument was that treating white people better was, definitionally, treating other racial groups worse, so therefore racist.
That argument won at the highest levels and has continued to win at the highest levels, time after time after time. It is still actively winning today, as groups like the “The Equal Protection Project” sue to eliminate race-specific scholarships, no matter the race in question. Can’t have a whites-only scholarship? Can’t have a blacks-only scholarship, either. That’s actual race-neutrality in action.
““Racism” as a word should, IMHO, continue to be used as a pejorative, not a category identifier.”
But I would still like it to have some kind of actual definition other than “people the left doesn’t like”, which is how almost every pejorative of any significance has been treated for most of my lifetime – racist, fascist, white supremacist, etc. (And yes, “commie” has received some of that treatment from the right – intellectual laziness is available to everyone.)
I would like them to be meaningful and considered pejorative because of what that meaning is instead of a signal that all “good and proper people” should shun said person for BadThink.
And a definition of racism that, in practice, is actually racist itself (can’t do this stuff for white people but it’s OK for non-white people, for only the very most obvious example) is exactly that. It’s nonsense.
And she’s completely wrong.
When the Boers arrived in what would be South Africa, there was nothing. No tribes nearby; they were all up further north. The Boers made farms out of untamed, unclaimed lands. In the course of doing so, they attracted attention, and some of those regional tribes came closer, and some were hired. Some raided, as they would against any other tribe. Eventually, the farms were prosperous, and towns were established, and then cities. Without the Boer colonists, there would be no South Africa today, whatsoever.
Apartheid didn’t happen in a vacuum. I’m not going to call it good, but it wasn’t the plan when they landed. The raiding tribes, who did as they had always done to other tribes, weren’t particularly welcome among the people they raided, and for the Boers, it’s not hard to see how they’d develop a basic pattern recognition of “You look and act like the people that stole my tools, crops and livestock, killed my farmhands”. Racism is the laziest form of collectivism, but do you really think that state of affairs would have come about if the regional tribes had shown up offering to do a days honest work for a day’s honest pay? Remember, the normal and expected consequence of losing a tribal conflict in Africa was for the losing side’s survivors to be enslaved. The Boers didn’t raid, and didn’t war unprovoked; they built.
And then the various tribes that had been vaguely in the region, had never made nothing of anything, decided that if the Boers had it, it was taken from them. Typical gluttonous, greedy, envious, slothful, wrathful, prideful communism, when it’s not getting its lustful rocks off with a little extracurricular rape. There’s no stuff for the them to want back because there was no stuff until someone else made it.
Dunno, I’m not a historian, but it sounds like it wasn’t so simple as “the Boers made the land good and the black folks are trying to take that”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mfecane
Even if she’s wrong about the history, I don’t see where her objection is to the race per se of the people she wants land from. They could just as easily be Indian or Chinese.
That’s a good point.
If the Chinese showed up and built a colony 400 years ago, however, I suspect the local tribes would have been much worse off. They would have brought their own serfs, sepoys and soldiers and not have a moment of time to consider hiring anyone local who couldn’t speak Mandarin.
You can see the evidence of this in how the Belt and Road initiatives in Africa are executed. The project is agreed with the Africa nation government in exchange for certain debt to China, and then the entire project is done with Chinese labor and the maintenance is with Chinese technicians. No local capacity is developed.
“you came and took all our shit”
Which colonizing country decided that the proper solution for ingratitude and the wholesale ejection of the “thieving colonizers was to take with them all the things the citizens of the colonizing country brought into the colony for the mutual and collective benefit of all there? As I recall, as they left, they took the telephones, the switchboards, the copper wire, the technology from the hospitals, the autoclaves, respirators, and all the stuff than had the colonies actually adopted them as their own would have improved the health and education there. If you have such a bad attitude towards the things Western Civilization brought you, medicine, education, police, legal systems, protection against the tribes that always attacked and pillaged you, then you can do as European people did, and comstruct it from scratch, except it won’t be completely from scratch, you already have a model to imitate.
“But that’s not racism.”
Of course not. It’s against white people.
“The speaker isn’t saying white people are inferior based on their race”
There are a ***TREMENDOUS*** number of things that the left denounces as “racism” that do not remotely fit that definition. Your usage of it around here has generally not met that definition.
As usual from the left, the definition of the term is more about who benefits than any actual definition.
When he says “But that’s not racism”, he means “That’s not real racism.”
It’s no different from the claim, “That’s not real socialism,” when referring to any of the failed socialist governments that have ever been tried and resulted in millions of civilian deaths in the 20th century alone.
And just like with “real socialism”, they’re perpetually just one (more) race-based genocide from achieving their supposed utopia.
The problem, as always is the British. If anyone wants reparations that has got to be the source.
Not this time. Boers were Dutch.
And the Brits were among the first of the Western nations to formally denounce and abolish slavery in all its lands and colonies.
Not that that counts for much among the Left; Limeys are still White, after all.