Modern day systemic racism, does it exist?

[RDKirk]

I think we should stick with the concept of racism as being a negative. That it exhibits a negative attitude towards people who are different re ethnic background. If I suggest that we should do more for Aborigine people in Australia then using the term racist for that is nonsensical.

The position argued against was that the two examples given in the relevant post, which didn't include crt, were racist. The argument against that I just put forward above.

So 'Hey everyone, we all have to consider aspects of racist behaviour which we might not be aware' is an attempt to secure a superior position? This might be just me, but it seems that you are asking people to accept that perhaps their social position shouldn't be assumed based on their where their family originated. That it isn't relevant to their social position.

I gave you a quotation and a link. According to CRT, the only reason you white colonizers of Australia do anything for Aborigine people is for the sake of keeping your position of supremacy secure.

If that's racist, then the word has been redefined while I wasn't paying attention.

It was.

 

[Bradskii]

According to CRT, the only reason you white colonizers of Australia do anything for Aborigine people is for the sake of keeping your position of supremacy secure.

I don't know who is claiming that, where they are claiming that or why. But we both know that it's patently absurd.

It was.

Explains a lot.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't know who is claiming that, where they are claiming that or why. But we both know that it's patently absurd.

Explains a lot.

I gave you a quote and gave you a link.

 

[Bradskii]

I gave you a quote and gave you a link.

My apologies. I should have read that. But I think we both think it's absurd, which is the point I was making. If anyone put that forward as an argument is any form of racial education in a school or business then they should be taken to task.

There is obvious embarrassment for any group where it is shown that they discriminate against a minority. Australian society is no different. What we have done - and haven't done, for the original inhabitants, is shameful. And we are to be held to account for it. Righting the wrongs would go some way to reconciling our stated position and our actual one. We'd obviously feel less guilty if we'd done the right thing initially. And I can imagine someone (even a government) thinking 'this doesn't reflect well on us so we need to do something'. But to suggest that we'd do it specifically to benefit ourselves is a pretty desperate interpretation.

In any case, what would be the solution? Do nothing? It's a crazy position to take.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Trump says he won’t allow ‘definite anti-white feeling’ in US​

The ex-president was asked in a wide-ranging interview with TIME about polls showing that a majority of his supporters believe that anti-white racism poses a greater problem in America than anti-black racism. Asked if he agreed, Trump replied, ‘Oh, I think that there is a lot to be said about that.’

'I think there is a definite anti-white feeling in this country and that can’t be allowed either.’

When asked how he would address that, Trump said ‘it would be a very tough thing to address, frankly’.

‘But if you look right now, there’s absolutely a bias against white and that’s a problem.’

Poll shows hiring managers discriminating against white men - Washington Examiner

It must be all that white privilege going around the country, but a recent survey showed that 1 in 6 hiring managers was asked not to hire white males. That's the discriminatory behavior implemented in companies throughout the country, according to data from ResumeBuilder. It's obviously...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

This is a proven fact at this point. When hiring managers openly admit to racial discrimination against white men in particular....we can say definitely there is a bias against white men.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Blaming someone for supposed racist attitudes  is racist?

If those attitudes are "supposed" (assumed) and you're assuming them because of the person's race....yes, it's racist.

 

[RDKirk]

My apologies. I should have read that. But I think we both think it's absurd, which is the point I was making. If anyone put that forward as an argument is any form of racial education in a school or business then they should be taken to task.

There is obvious embarrassment for any group where it is shown that they discriminate against a minority. Australian society is no different. What we have done - and haven't done, for the original inhabitants, is shameful. And we are to be held to account for it. Righting the wrongs would go some way to reconciling our stated position and our actual one. We'd obviously feel less guilty if we'd done the right thing initially. And I can imagine someone (even a government) thinking 'this doesn't reflect well on us so we need to do something'. But to suggest that we'd do it specifically to benefit ourselves is a pretty desperate interpretation.

In any case, what would be the solution? Do nothing? It's a crazy position to take.

And yet, that is CRT.

 

[RDKirk]

If those attitudes are "supposed" (assumed) and you're assuming them because of the person's race....yes, it's racist.

By the old definition.

But sociology must have new professors, and they have to come up with new concepts for their dissertations.

 

[Bradskii]

And yet, that is CRT.

It's someone's interpretation of what crt might be. If some idiot puts that forward as an honest proposal then he should be called out on it. But just because someone suggests it doesn't mean that educating people about inherent racism is wrong. It's not.

If someone in a political party says something stupid, then you don't dump every policy from that party. If someone from your denomination says something idiotic then you don't dump your church.

Actually, it wouldn't be a bad idea to include that in a lesson on racism in school in order to explain that some people might suggest helping minorities just to look good and not because they're really interested in helping people. It's a moral concept I've already covered with ten year olds.

 

[Ana the Ist]

By the old definition.

We're all still using that definition though.

But sociology must have new professors, and they have to come up with new concepts for their dissertations.

Ask any of those fools if the statement "All (insert racial slur) are lazy degenerate savages" would be a racist statement if it were on their blackboard, whiteboard, projection screen, TED talk background, etc....

And when they answer "yes, of course" you simply ask how they can possibly know that without any thorough examination of the power dynamics between whomever wrote it and the target of the slur?

I've never seen anyone even try to answer that....and it's pretty obvious why.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's someone's interpretation of what crt might be.

Nobody here is going to teach you about CRT. It's not an interpretation. If you haven't educated yourself by now, you clearly aren't interested.

But just because someone suggests it doesn't mean that educating people about inherent racism is wrong.

Inherent racism....the assumption that a vast swathe of people are "morally deficient bigots" who cannot possibly help but be racist....because of their skin color or otherwise physical characteristics, is itself.....a racist belief.

 

[DaisyDay]

You come across anti-white racists once in a while... They tend to be the most unintelligent and oftentimes, the most mentally unstable of individuals. One might refer to them as being "savage".

No dog whistles there!

 

[Ana the Ist]

No dog whistles there!

I thought it was a joke.

 

[DaisyDay]

I thought it was a joke.

Hm, you may be right, that it was meant as a joke, but I don't see any wit or symbolism there.

 

[rjs330]

It's someone's interpretation of what crt might be. If some idiot puts that forward as an honest proposal then he should be called out on it. But just because someone suggests it doesn't mean that educating people about inherent racism is wrong. It's not.

I'm glad you recognize that idiocy at least. Now if you could only recognize that it is one of the principles of CRT. And a reason why crt should be kept out if the schools.

Secondly what on earth is inherent racism to you? Who exactly is inherently racist?

 

[RDKirk]

We're all still using that definition though.




Ask any of those fools if the statement "All (insert racial slur) are lazy degenerate savages" would be a racist statement if it were on their blackboard, whiteboard, projection screen, TED talk background, etc....

And when they answer "yes, of course" you simply ask how they can possibly know that without any thorough examination of the power dynamics between whomever wrote it and the target of the slur?

I've never seen anyone even try to answer that....and it's pretty obvious why.

This is why it doesn't work to say, "What if a white person said about black people what you said about white people?"

This is why it doesn't work to say "What if a man said about women what you said about men?"

This even factors into the student unrest over the war in Israel as "colonizer versus natives"...and why Palestinians have vigorous LGBGTIA+ support.

This is all where Critical Theory (which is ivory tower Marxism...they explicitly say so themselves) goes. It's all about identifying an eternal Oppressor with whom there can be no treaty, compromise, or reconciliation.

Anything can be done to anyone identified as the Oppressor, and it's all righteous. That's how the Chinese Cultural Revolution got started. That's why physics professors in China could be slaughtered...because physics is a teaching of the imperialist Oppressor. And we see that starting in American universities today--science, history, philosophy, even mathematics--being discarded by Critical Theory as tools of the Oppressor. Professors must recant or be persecuted.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No jokes here, folks! Racism, no matter by who, is always a primitive, and savage trait. Do you disagree?

I still think he's joking.

Edit-they're not all winners folks

 

[Ana the Ist]

This is why it doesn't work to say, "What if a white person said about black people what you said about white people?"

That would be equality. Universalism. Or the political principle of treating people like they are equals.

This is why it doesn't work to say "What if a man said about women what you said about men?"

See above.

This even factors into the student unrest over the war in Israel as "colonizer versus natives"...and why Palestinians have vigorous LGBGTIA+ support.

Part of me wonders just how bad has it gotten on these campuses. Letting the protesters burn them down may in fact be the best option.

After all, how dumb do you have to be to not realize that your university has absolutely no ability to end a foreign war? Are they smoking crack between classes? Sniffing paint thinner?

Dumbest generation of college students in quite some time.

This is all where Critical Theory (which is ivory tower Marxism...they explicitly say so themselves) goes. It's all about identifying an eternal Oppressor with whom there can be no treaty, compromise, or reconciliation.

Which is a worldview based on....

1. Faith.
2. A tragically bad understanding of both history and power.
3. Resentment.
4. Underserved righteousness.
5. Complete lack of foresight.

Anything can be done to anyone identified as the Oppressor, and it's all righteous. That's how the Chinese Cultural Revolution got started. That's why physics professors in China could be slaughtered...because physics is a teaching of the imperialist Oppressor. And we see that starting in American universities today...science, history, philosophy... being discarded by Critical Theory as tools of the Oppressor. Professors must recant or be persecuted.

Maoism is definitely the most comparable ideology, I'd agree.

By far the most hypocritical aspect of the ideology is its understanding of violence. "Wrong" pronouns? Violence. Disagreement? Violence. Silence? Violence.

Meanwhile they're literally chasing Jewish students around campus who are just trying to live as if they have anything to do with the current conflict.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The alternative is that racism is an intelligent, enlightened trait, understood by a more learned society.

I hope that's not what you're suggesting!

Why choose the word "savage" so often associated in the past with racist beliefs?

I've come to believe that none of us are so enlightened and far from the mindset of the most primitive amongst us as we may imagine.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's so stupid that white people are called barbarians and brown people savages... I don't acknowledge such nonsense. To me, the two words are synonymous, and I suggest everyone here stop playing along with the historical narratives of the words - it only continues the division.

It was an odd choice of words.

Racist and savage are synonymous in your mind?

It doesn't matter what color you are. If you're a racist, you're a barbarian and a savage.

Well ok....you're entitled to your opinion.

To me....a guy doing 40 to life for beating his child to death is a savage. A guy who murdered an old lady for 50$ is a savage.

A guy making broad based assumptions about people off of perceived physical characteristics is probably just ignorant.