Aryan Youths Commit Racial Harassment

[Jason Harvestdancer]

As a Hispanic I think this is obvious. In any altercation between someone lighter and someone darker the lighter person is considered to be white. If I were to get in a fight with a white guy you would of course accuse him of being racist, but if I were to get in a fight with a black guy you would of course accuse me of being racist.

That is if you haven't already revoked my minority status for not being a progressive.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

As a Hispanic I think this is obvious. In any altercation between someone lighter and someone darker the lighter person is considered to be white. If I were to get in a fight with a white guy you would of course accuse him of being racist, but if I were to get in a fight with a black guy you would of course accuse me of being racist.

That is if you haven't already revoked my minority status for not being a progressive.

Huh, how is any of that relevant???

If you got into a fight and called the victim an n word, you'd be called racist.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

As a Hispanic I think this is obvious. In any altercation between someone lighter and someone darker the lighter person is considered to be white. If I were to get in a fight with a white guy you would of course accuse him of being racist, but if I were to get in a fight with a black guy you would of course accuse me of being racist.

That is if you haven't already revoked my minority status for not being a progressive.

Huh, how is any of that relevant???

If you got into a fight and called the victim an n word, you'd be called racist.

You can't tell the difference between being a racist and being called a racist. One of those two is what I mentioned.

Unless you think accusation is both evidence and proof. Should I accuse you in order to establish your guilt?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

As a Hispanic I think this is obvious. In any altercation between someone lighter and someone darker the lighter person is considered to be white. If I were to get in a fight with a white guy you would of course accuse him of being racist, but if I were to get in a fight with a black guy you would of course accuse me of being racist.

That is if you haven't already revoked my minority status for not being a progressive.

Huh, how is any of that relevant???

If you got into a fight and called the victim an n word, you'd be called racist.

You can't tell the difference between being a racist and being called a racist. One of those two is what I mentioned.

Unless you think accusation is both evidence and proof. Should I accuse you in order to establish your guilt?

Your post is irrelevant in the context of the op. The offenders were unquestionably racist. That is not the controversy being discussed, but instead if it's Indian cultural racism against blacks or racism learned from white culture in the US.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

See? They were fighting someone darker than themselves, which makes them white.

You have this racist belief that violence is a white characteristic, and others who are violent are being white when they are violent. That is racist.

Also I'm darker than you, so you aren't allowed to disagree with me about this.

 

[ruby sparks]

It seems it will take an even more obvious example to convince people that wokeness is a religion. I can't imagine what that would have to be.

Rubbish. For too long, too many things have lain uncovered or swept under the carpet. Wokeness is just something that can be taken too far. Totally telling and not at all inherently regressive of you to dismiss it altogether.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

See? They were fighting someone darker than themselves, which makes them white.

You have this racist belief that violence is a white characteristic, and others who are violent are being white when they are violent. That is racist.

Also I'm darker than you, so you aren't allowed to disagree with me about this.

Stop misrepresenting what I wrote.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

See? They were fighting someone darker than themselves, which makes them white.

You have this racist belief that violence is a white characteristic, and others who are violent are being white when they are violent. That is racist.

Also I'm darker than you, so you aren't allowed to disagree with me about this.

Stop misrepresenting what I wrote.

You only say that because I'm Hispanic. If I was white you wouldn't say that.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

See? They were fighting someone darker than themselves, which makes them white.

You have this racist belief that violence is a white characteristic, and others who are violent are being white when they are violent. That is racist.

Also I'm darker than you, so you aren't allowed to disagree with me about this.

Stop misrepresenting what I wrote.

You only say that because I'm Hispanic. If I was white you wouldn't say that.

Lol indeed. They only attack us because we aren't white like them.... Am I woke now?

 

[ruby sparks]

Can you share a free, non-registration-required link to the article?

, including viewing some phone camera footage of the incident itself,

Can you share?

and I do not see anything put forward to bolster the suggestion that these non-white boys were emulating or adopting 'traditional' white racism against blacks.

What generation American were the juniors/seniors in high school? Would it be logical to conclude that generations of them and their immediate ancestors integrated into American culture and unlearned racism or adapted it to use American words for blacks and to look for acceptance of a racial hierarchy by looking down on others?

It appears to be the article writer's speculative opinion.

I wouldn't doubt it, but I am not going to conclude things as I do not have required information to make an informed opinion.

I see that the OP article writer, Nell Irvine Painter, is an African American, female historian and author of 'The History of White People'. She may have a point, or she may not. I don't see how she or we could actually know. It is possible that she is simply underestimating the extent of Indian racism against blacks which has little or nothing to do with white people.

It is also possible that she has a logical line of reasoning that you and I have not considered, having a lot more historical context or local context to the issue. You probably know more than me, having read the article. I am open-minded to both your assessment and hers until I have a basis for having a more informed opinion.

The fact (it seems) that her interpretation is not backed up (by anything much or at all) would make me at least question the way she sees things, and if I was ever to read 'The History of White People' I might now do so with a bit of caution.

Imo, 'white bashing' is nowadays a cultural thing. As is (sometimes unnecessary) white guilt and self-flagellation. I have the feeling that I would take the view that a few posters here overstate it, but I would still agree with their general point in principle.

Given that the victims were girls and the perpetrators boys, there may also be a sexist aspect to this too.

And classist. All these things could be factors. I don't have enough info to say.

Try this, don:

https://6abc.com/community-outraged...using-racial-slurs-urinating-on-girl/5638576/

or

https://www.fox29.com/news/2-nj-tee...sing-racial-slurs-urinating-on-young-students

I don't think those give us enough information, especially on the question of the OP article writer's suggestion that the youths learned from or were influenced by American racism against blacks. It is, I agree with you, a possible explanation. However, when such things are suggested, without them being backed up, I think scepticism is warranted, especially in light of the fact that racism by Indians against blacks is apparently commonplace devoid of white influence.

I suspect that the questions of why these youths were racist and indeed whether 'white' racism can be culturally absorbed, are not going to be sorted out in this thread, unless some more evidence is found.

There may be a lesser phenomenon going on here. It may be that the racism itself was let's say 'homegrown' ('Indian' if you like) but that American culture to some extent gives 'permission' for it to be openly expressed. I'm not even sure if I'd back that idea, to be honest, and it's as speculative as any other.

There is a related (though different) issue in the UK, with people of Indian subcontinent descent. In one very very infamous and fairly recent case, a gang of such men ran a 'grooming young girls (mostly white) for sex' ring, and it was not investigated properly, partly for fear (on the part of the authorities) of being seen as racist for levelling accusations at minorities.


The Rochdale child sex abuse ring involved underage teenage girls in Rochdale, Greater Manchester, England. Nine men were convicted of sex trafficking and other offences including rape, trafficking girls for sex and conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child in May 2012. This resulted in Greater Manchester Police launching Operation Doublet to investigate further claims of abuse with 19 men so far being convicted.Forty-seven girls were identified as victims of child sexual exploitation during the police investigation. The men were British Pakistanis, which led to discussion on whether the failure to investigate them was linked to the authorities' fear of being accused of racial prejudice. The girls were mainly White British. In March 2015, Greater Manchester Police apologised for its failure to investigate the child sexual exploitation allegations more thoroughly between 2008–10.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_child_sex_abuse_ring

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Can you share a free, non-registration-required link to the article?




Can you share?



What generation American were the juniors/seniors in high school? Would it be logical to conclude that generations of them and their immediate ancestors integrated into American culture and unlearned racism or adapted it to use American words for blacks and to look for acceptance of a racial hierarchy by looking down on others?

It appears to be the article writer's speculative opinion.

I wouldn't doubt it, but I am not going to conclude things as I do not have required information to make an informed opinion.

I see that the OP article writer, Nell Irvine Painter, is an African American, female historian and author of 'The History of White People'. She may have a point, or she may not. I don't see how she or we could actually know. It is possible that she is simply underestimating the extent of Indian racism against blacks which has little or nothing to do with white people.

It is also possible that she has a logical line of reasoning that you and I have not considered, having a lot more historical context or local context to the issue. You probably know more than me, having read the article. I am open-minded to both your assessment and hers until I have a basis for having a more informed opinion.

The fact (it seems) that her interpretation is not backed up (by anything much or at all) would make me at least question the way she sees things, and if I was ever to read 'The History of White People' I might now do so with a bit of caution.

Imo, 'white bashing' is nowadays a cultural thing. As is (sometimes unnecessary) white guilt and self-flagellation. I have the feeling that I would take the view that a few posters here overstate it, but I would still agree with their general point in principle.

Given that the victims were girls and the perpetrators boys, there may also be a sexist aspect to this too.

And classist. All these things could be factors. I don't have enough info to say.

Try this, don:

https://6abc.com/community-outraged...using-racial-slurs-urinating-on-girl/5638576/

or

https://www.fox29.com/news/2-nj-tee...sing-racial-slurs-urinating-on-young-students

I don't think those give us enough information, especially on the question of the OP article writer's suggestion that the youths learned from or were influenced by American racism against blacks. It is, I agree with you, a possible explanation. However, when such things are suggested, without them being backed up, I think scepticism is warranted, especially in light of the fact that racism by Indians against blacks is apparently commonplace devoid of white influence.

I suspect that the questions of why these youths were racist and indeed whether 'white' racism can be culturally absorbed, are not going to be sorted out in this thread, unless some more evidence is found.

There may be a lesser phenomenon going on here. It may be that the racism itself was let's say 'homegrown' ('Indian' if you like) but that American culture to some extent gives 'permission' for it to be openly expressed. I'm not even sure if I'd back that idea, to be honest, and it's as speculative as any other.

I think it's plausible. If you want to support that, here are two items: they were surrounded by white people at the time of taunting the girls. They were using American English racial slurs, not racial slurs native to India, i.e. the n-word is a Latin-derived word, not Sanskrit or other older Indian languages-derived word. I am not going to be the person to defend a conclusion over this as I have been saying I don't know enough about it, and as such I remain open to ideas.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It seems it will take an even more obvious example to convince people that wokeness is a religion. I can't imagine what that would have to be.

Once it gets someone unsuitable elected as President and those followers support that guy despite him being "unwoke", will it be a religion.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think it's plausible. If you want to support that, here are two items: they were surrounded by white people at the time of taunting the girls. They were using American English racial slurs, not racial slurs native to India, i.e. the n-word is a Latin-derived word, not Sanskrit or other older Indian languages-derived word. I am not going to be the person to defend a conclusion over this as I have been saying I don't know enough about it, and as such I remain open to ideas.

Point taken on the 'n' word but I'm not sure how much weight to give it. The other sorts of things that might be relevant to this case would be the boys' backgrounds, previous behaviour patterns, and so on and so on. Presumably they were born in the USA? Were their parents also? Are they high-caste and as such prone to looking down on people? Lots of stuff. And those would only inform this case. I'd be more interested in the general cases, as in (a) as the issue relates to whiteness (or not) and (b) how it relates to racism generally. For example is there any evidence to suggest that racism psychologically 'migrates' or 'infects' or is adopted (for whatever reason) by 'outsiders' in or of a certain culture in the way speculated.

For me the bottom line is this, if you are an historian and you are going to write something like that for public consumption, you need to have a case that goes beyond what that article had. So, I'm going to be sceptical until I hear a proper case. I'm invoking a hypothetical burden on the one who made the claim, if you like.

It may be that the OP article writer's book, 'The History of White People' might illuminate us. One would hope that it is not full of such claims, especially if they are unsubstantiated. I also wonder if the writer was or wasn't aware that Indians often have racist views of their own making about black people. Or, are her views overly American-centric and not sufficiently internationally informed?

 

[ruby sparks]

I did find this part of what the writer said early in the piece to be puzzling:

"While it’s tempting to see the reported ethnicity of the boys suspected in the assault as complicating the story and raising questions about whether the assault should be thought of as racist, I look at it through a different lens."

To me, and before even getting to the different lens she then expounds on, the controversial matter that the thread is primarily about (the adopting of white racism) it's as if at the outset there's some.....doubt...in her mind about even just calling the incident racist. Why would that be? It seems to me to be totally plain. She's arguably hinting at at least an apparent inclination to excuse it, or at the very least not allocate direct blame to the perpetrators, by not naming it. Then she moves on to indirectly blame white people, essentially, in general terms.

As I say, seems slightly odd that there's even a question in her mind that it might not be racism.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

For me the bottom line is this, if you are an historian and you are going to write something like that for public consumption, you need to have a case that goes beyond what that article had.

It was an opinion piece, not a doctoral thesis. It need not do anything at all beyond being an opinion expressed.

 

[ruby sparks]

For me the bottom line is this, if you are an historian and you are going to write something like that for public consumption, you need to have a case that goes beyond what that article had.

It was an opinion piece, not a doctoral thesis. It need not do anything at all beyond being an opinion expressed.

Sure. Of course. I am not saying that she ought to have made the detailed case in the actual article. I am mostly just saying that the case is not made, or to be precise that I have not yet seen it.

And, to be fair, she did have the opportunity to do it. There is nothing unusual about backing up one's opinions in an opinion piece. It is done regularly.

Also, the one paper she did cite '('The White Space') did not seem, to me, to add much specific weight to her particular point. But I admit I only skimmed it.

“The White Space”
https://sociology.yale.edu/sites/default/files/pages_from_sre-11_rev5_printer_files.pdf

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

For me the bottom line is this, if you are an historian and you are going to write something like that for public consumption, you need to have a case that goes beyond what that article had.

It was an opinion piece, not a doctoral thesis. It need not do anything at all beyond being an opinion expressed.

Sure. Of course. I am not saying that she ought to have made the detailed case in the actual article. I am mostly just saying that the case is not made, or to be precise that I have not yet seen it.

And, to be fair, she did have the opportunity to do it. There is nothing unusual about backing up one's opinions in an opinion piece. It is done regularly.

Also, the one paper she did cite '('The White Space') did not seem, to me, to add much specific weight to her particular point. But I admit I only skimmed it.

“The White Space”
https://sociology.yale.edu/sites/default/files/pages_from_sre-11_rev5_printer_files.pdf

Let's look at a couple of things here...

First, consider racism in India. Much of the segregation is caste based which while associated to indigenous tribes is actually based on behavior. Persons who are designated Scheduled Castes or Tribe used to be called Dalit, but their cultural behaviors involve something seen as unclean in Hinduism...such as killing animals (fishermen, cattle ranchers, ...) or eating the animals (non vegetarians). Touching them is thought to be impure and if it happens one needs to ritually cleanse the self.

So, ..., the Indian Americans were standing next to several White persons, appearing integrated into that crowd. They likely perceived it as such. Were the White persons actively disenfranchising the Indian Americans? No. Perhaps one was taking the video, but the perception appears to have been of acceptance.

Moreover, if the Indian Americans were grossed out by non-vegetarian-ness of the blacks, then why not also all the White people around them? Why were they trying to integrate with presumably non-vegetarian Whites, sitting next to them, not finding it impure, not scolding them? Along with that, why use American vernacular racist terms that have more to do with European historical racism than Indian terms such as Dalit?

Well, I still haven't read the article, and no, I don't have an informed opinion, except to say it doesn't appear to be implausible to me that these two characters were trying to act American, which maybe they are by birth....but are they by behavior?

 

[Metaphor]

I did find this part of what the writer said early in the piece to be puzzling:

"While it’s tempting to see the reported ethnicity of the boys suspected in the assault as complicating the story and raising questions about whether the assault should be thought of as racist, I look at it through a different lens."

To me, and before even getting to the different lens she then expounds on, the controversial matter that the thread is primarily about (the adopting of white racism) it's as if at the outset there's some.....doubt...in her mind about even just calling the incident racist. Why would that be? It seems to me to be totally plain. She's arguably hinting at at least an apparent inclination to excuse it, or at the very least not allocate direct blame to the perpetrators, by not naming it. Then she moves on to indirectly blame white people, essentially, in general terms.

As I say, seems slightly odd that there's even a question in her mind that it might not be racism.

In her mind it cannot be racist, because only white people can be racist. This is not a parody of her position but it is instead a standard sociological position that racism = prejudice + power and only white people can have both (over minorities).

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I did find this part of what the writer said early in the piece to be puzzling:

"While it’s tempting to see the reported ethnicity of the boys suspected in the assault as complicating the story and raising questions about whether the assault should be thought of as racist, I look at it through a different lens."

To me, and before even getting to the different lens she then expounds on, the controversial matter that the thread is primarily about (the adopting of white racism) it's as if at the outset there's some.....doubt...in her mind about even just calling the incident racist. Why would that be? It seems to me to be totally plain. She's arguably hinting at at least an apparent inclination to excuse it, or at the very least not allocate direct blame to the perpetrators, by not naming it. Then she moves on to indirectly blame white people, essentially, in general terms.

As I say, seems slightly odd that there's even a question in her mind that it might not be racism.

In her mind it cannot be racist, because only white people can be racist. This is not a parody of her position but it is instead a standard sociological position that racism = prejudice + power and only white people can have both (over minorities).

We had that particular mindset visit us a few years ago on this very forum (the only white people can be racist thing, because racism = prejudice + power, which only white people can have, despite there having been a black president at the time and cities where the mayor, police chief, etc were all black; it was still only racist when white people did bigoted things there). It really is a weird psychology. Fascinating.

 

[ruby sparks]

Sure. Of course. I am not saying that she ought to have made the detailed case in the actual article. I am mostly just saying that the case is not made, or to be precise that I have not yet seen it.

And, to be fair, she did have the opportunity to do it. There is nothing unusual about backing up one's opinions in an opinion piece. It is done regularly.

Also, the one paper she did cite '('The White Space') did not seem, to me, to add much specific weight to her particular point. But I admit I only skimmed it.

“The White Space”
https://sociology.yale.edu/sites/default/files/pages_from_sre-11_rev5_printer_files.pdf

Let's look at a couple of things here...

First, consider racism in India. Much of the segregation is caste based which while associated to indigenous tribes is actually based on behavior. Persons who are designated Scheduled Castes or Tribe used to be called Dalit, but their cultural behaviors involve something seen as unclean in Hinduism...such as killing animals (fishermen, cattle ranchers, ...) or eating the animals (non vegetarians). Touching them is thought to be impure and if it happens one needs to ritually cleanse the self.

So, ..., the Indian Americans were standing next to several White persons, appearing integrated into that crowd. They likely perceived it as such. Were the White persons actively disenfranchising the Indian Americans? No. Perhaps one was taking the video, but the perception appears to have been of acceptance.

Moreover, if the Indian Americans were grossed out by non-vegetarian-ness of the blacks, then why not also all the White people around them? Why were they trying to integrate with presumably non-vegetarian Whites, sitting next to them, not finding it impure, not scolding them? Along with that, why use American vernacular racist terms that have more to do with European historical racism than Indian terms such as Dalit?

Well, I still haven't read the article, and no, I don't have an informed opinion, except to say it doesn't appear to be implausible to me that these two characters were trying to act American, which maybe they are by birth....but are they by behavior?

Of course it's plausible. But saying that doesn't amount to much in the end, doesn't get us anywhere. It's also plausible that they just had their own racist views of black people. In other words, what, if anything, is there to lead one to the conclusion that the OP article writer put forward? Not much, imo.

Again, I am not sure how much if any weight to attach to them using 'western' slang. I'm not sure it indicates much either way. Why would we expect them not to?

I do agree with you that the issue is open. I just go back to my hypothetical burden of proof, or substantiation if you like. Since at this point it's missing, I'm sceptical. An informal 'claim' was made, and I haven't seen it substantiated.