Aryan Youths Commit Racial Harassment

[J842P]

Just remember: Ghandi himself was supportive of the Aryan movement, and racist against black people

There is also that Indian guy (AOC's former chief of staff is a big fan) who was a legit collaborator with Nazi Germany.

, who he frequently referred to as "Kaffirs".

Isn't that Islamic term for "unbeliever"?

Interestingly, it is the same word, but it evolved a different usage in the context of South Africa:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaffir_(racial_term)#Etymology

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ghandi is often cited as being quite racist as well.

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/02/7660...-attitudes-on-race-and-sex-are-under-scrutiny

If you bothered to read your own link, Gandhi was racist when he was young, but he outgrew it and fought discrimination for most of his life.

As I said, Ghandi is often cited for being quite racist. He came from a society in which racism is common. Racism is also common in China, against darker skinned asians like myself from southeast Asia, or even within china of the darker Chinese people. Whether or not he overcame this and fought against racism later on is irrelevant.

Even against anyone not from your cultural group.

Some of her relatives have been worried about us traveling into areas where the Han aren't dominant.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think there is some truth in that, obviously. We, as in white people like me, possibly mostly but not exclusively men (like me), manufactured the brand of racism that is arguably most common and pronounced in the world today. Which is why it is very difficult, but potentially very interesting, to try understand what might have been going on, in the OP case, and what might be going on regarding the issue/phenomenon generally.

But herein lies the trap. The people who push racism are NOT like you if you don't push racism. Racism isn't inherent to "whiteness", even if the people who invented it and spread it everywhere were white. To insist that would itself be racist, as Derec noted above. Racism isn't "whiteness" anymore than street violence is "blackness". There is nothing inherent to one's race that causes either of these things.

We've done your overly-simplistic take on what is and isn't racism many times. I don't take the same approach as you and I don't think yours is a good one, for reasons given many times. I can't really be bothered to discuss it with you again. Suffice to say that I think there's much more nuance than your trite categorisation which seeks to not distinguish between things which may not be equivalent, imo. Making general observations, even if involving criticisms, in group terms, is (a) not only not necessarily racism by any reasonable standard (though you would like it to be considered automatically so) even if incorrect and (b) hypocritical of you, since you yourself make sweeping and indeed unsubstantiated generalisations about groups you criticise when it suits you (eg feminists) and you end up hoist by your own unworkable, anti-identity politics petard.

A long, long time ago I suggested to you that you adopt a more flexible and complex approach, which would allow for analysis in group terms in some ways and at some times, and in individual terms in other ways at other times, or a simultaneous combination of the two, without crying foul, but you persist with your dumbed-down approach, the one that allows you to decry the former (group analysis and framing) when you want to. Why? I don't know, but it's an incessant rerun of a regurgitated mantra about identity politics that I think you probably gleaned from sources which are less than balanced or sophisticated (sources with an anti-'left' bias, basically).

And, setting potential racism temporarily aside, what surely matters most here and would be most interesting and enlightening, is whether the writer of the article was correct, or not, and if she was correct, what are the explanations and processes, and if she was incorrect, what gives with that (some sort of anti-white prejudice or unfair blanket categorization or generalizations about whites being only a few options among many)? Not that we can work all that out. We don't have sufficient information, whether in the specific or general case. But with most of these things, there'll likely be ways it's a mixture of correct and incorrect.

At this point, my gut feeling is that she over-egged her pudding.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The phrasing that seems most controversial is the "enacting American whiteness in a very traditional way" phrase.

I think certain people are so focused on the word "whiteness" within that phrase that they are missing other key words that might illuminate meaning.

So, for example, she did not write "enacting Swedish whiteness in a very traditional way." So first it's not a thing about all whites, but instead whiteness in America.

She also didn't write "enacting American whiteness in a very modern way." In our day, we have illegalized slavery. We have elected a Black President and then Twitler. Modern American whiteness might include as a feature a dichotomy on racism, schizophrenic and unhinged.

What does it mean to talk about American whiteness in an historical tradition? I mean, is it really talking about every white individual in a group, or if the American govt practiced and excused the behaviors, i.e. the majority of Whites voted on things that then constrained all whites because that's what govt does, ... does that qualify? Or, alternatively, if a majority did a thing historically, does that qualify as "X-ness in a traditional way?"

Blacks were never in charge of America, even if Obama was President. Does this make "enacting American blackness in a very traditional way," an apples to oranges comparison?

[On the other hand, if the intent of the statement is to draw out what some individuals did and call it traditional American whiteness, I tend to disagree on almost the same grounds as JP. We wouldn't want to say violence is part of traditional American blackness. It's just to me different, maybe, because whites defined America traditionally. So I want to flesh out if there is a different justification, non-equality, if you will.]

I suppose I cannot even ask this nuanced question if some people cannot get past the word whiteness...

 

[Gun Nut]

"There are approximately 60,000 Africans of different nationalities residing in India. Many have faced racial discrimination at some point of time during their stay in the country. Majority of Africans who have come to reside in the country are either pursuing higher studies or working."

The dark face of Indian racism
https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/the-dark-face-of-indian-racism-1.61161168

Maybe... just MAYBE, then.. Black people have something to do with inviting hate? I mean, if it isn't only white versus black, but indian and asian, and whomever else.. then shouldn't people maybe think about why that may be? The article implies they are "living out the American dream" so to speak, by being racist. Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is more accurate.. .and the simpler explanation is that black people somehow invite discrimination from everyone, not just American Whitie.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

"There are approximately 60,000 Africans of different nationalities residing in India. Many have faced racial discrimination at some point of time during their stay in the country. Majority of Africans who have come to reside in the country are either pursuing higher studies or working."

The dark face of Indian racism
https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/the-dark-face-of-indian-racism-1.61161168

Maybe... just MAYBE, then.. Black people have something to do with inviting hate? I mean, if it isn't only white versus black, but indian and asian, and whomever else.. then shouldn't people maybe think about why that may be? The article implies they are "living out the American dream" so to speak, by being racist. Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is more accurate.. .and the simpler explanation is that black people somehow invite discrimination from everyone, not just American Whitie.

Wow. And Jews? And women who dress a certain way are just asking to be raped?

Maybe, just MAYBE, the OP article's underlying argument is correct and bigotry has nothing to do with surface differences; that they are merely focal points betraying a far deeper indoctrination?

(And, no, Occam's razor does not say the simplest explanation is "more accurate"; it states that of two explanations for an event, the one that requires the smallest number of assumptions is usually correct, or, that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely is the explanation)

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think there is some truth in that, obviously. We, as in white people like me, possibly mostly but not exclusively men (like me), manufactured the brand of racism that is arguably most common and pronounced in the world today. Which is why it is very difficult, but potentially very interesting, to try understand what might have been going on, in the OP case, and what might be going on regarding the issue/phenomenon generally.

But herein lies the trap. The people who push racism are NOT like you if you don't push racism. Racism isn't inherent to "whiteness", even if the people who invented it and spread it everywhere were white. To insist that would itself be racist, as Derec noted above. Racism isn't "whiteness" anymore than street violence is "blackness". There is nothing inherent to one's race that causes either of these things.

We've done your overly-simplistic take on what is and isn't racism many times. I don't take the same approach as you and I don't think yours is a good one, for reasons given many times. I can't really be bothered to discuss it with you again. Suffice to say that I think there's much more nuance than your trite categorisation which seeks to not distinguish between things which may not be equivalent, imo. Making general observations, even if involving criticisms, in group terms, is (a) not only not necessarily racism by any reasonable standard (though you would like it to be considered automatically so) even if incorrect and (b) hypocritical of you, since you yourself make sweeping and indeed unsubstantiated generalisations about groups you criticise when it suits you (eg feminists) and you end up hoist by your own unworkable, anti-identity politics petard.

A long, long time ago I suggested to you that you adopt a more flexible and complex approach, which would allow for analysis in group terms in some ways and at some times, and in individual terms in other ways at other times, or a simultaneous combination of the two, without crying foul, but you persist with your dumbed-down approach, the one that allows you to decry the former (group analysis and framing) when you want to. Why? I don't know, but it's an incessant rerun of a regurgitated mantra about identity politics that I think you probably gleaned from sources which are less than balanced or sophisticated (sources with an anti-'left' bias, basically).

And, setting potential racism temporarily aside, what surely matters most here and would be most interesting and enlightening, is whether the writer of the article was correct, or not, and if she was correct, what are the explanations and processes, and if she was incorrect, what gives with that (some sort of anti-white prejudice or unfair blanket categorization or generalizations about whites being only a few options among many)? Not that we can work all that out. We don't have sufficient information, whether in the specific or general case. But with most of these things, there'll likely be ways it's a mixture of correct and incorrect.

At this point, my gut feeling is that she over-egged her pudding.

Did you even read my text that you quoted before going into this long-winded screed? I wrote that calling racism "whiteness" is Itself racist. It is. Equating racism with white people is racist. That you disagree is concerning. Full stop.

Some white people acting badly does not make them like you, or hell what do I know, maybe it does in your case, since here you are defending racism. Other white people should be made aware that white guilt is stupid. If you are not racist you are not guilty simply because you have the same skin colour as others who are. And you are certainly not guilty for racism by people of other races! That's stupid and identity politics taken to absurd levels. You are only responsible for what you yourself do and the positions that you yourself take.

Your white male guilt has warped your mind. You shouldn't have to be told this from people who aren't white. Did you ever notice that the people on this board who try to reign you in on this animus you have against white people tend to not be white themselves? Perhaps that should be a clue for you.

 

[ruby sparks]

"There are approximately 60,000 Africans of different nationalities residing in India. Many have faced racial discrimination at some point of time during their stay in the country. Majority of Africans who have come to reside in the country are either pursuing higher studies or working."

The dark face of Indian racism
https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/the-dark-face-of-indian-racism-1.61161168

Maybe... just MAYBE, then.. Black people have something to do with inviting hate? I mean, if it isn't only white versus black, but indian and asian, and whomever else.. then shouldn't people maybe think about why that may be? The article implies they are "living out the American dream" so to speak, by being racist. Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is more accurate.. .and the simpler explanation is that black people somehow invite discrimination from everyone, not just American Whitie.

I think that at the very least you may be misusing Occam's razor. Either that, or you're not being entirely serious, because on the face of it, what you said sounds like outrageous victim-blaming.

 

[ruby sparks]

Did you even read my text that you quoted before going into this long-winded screed? I wrote that calling racism "whiteness" is Itself racist. It is. Equating racism with white people is racist. That you disagree is concerning. Full stop.

Some white people acting badly does not make them like you, or hell what do I know, maybe it does in your case, since here you are defending racism. Other white people should be made aware that white guilt is stupid. If you are not racist you are not guilty simply because you have the same skin colour as others who are. And you are certainly not guilty for racism by people of other races! That's stupid and identity politics taken to absurd levels. You are only responsible for what you yourself do and the positions that you yourself take.

Your white male guilt has warped your mind. You shouldn't have to be told this from people who aren't white. Did you ever notice that the people on this board who try to reign you in on this animus you have against white people tend to not be white themselves? Perhaps that should be a clue for you.

As I said, I'm not really into discussing it with you at length. Don't buy your extremely unconvincing schtick. Never have. Though it works well for you as a means of sidelining what I would call actual racism, or if you insist, the sort of racism that in fact causes almost all the real, serious problems in the world. What you do, incessantly, on this forum, basically amounts to a sort of subtle, but at the same time not very clever, mealy-mouthed apologetics, imo.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

As I said, I'm not really into discussing it with you at length.

He says after he writes a longwinded screed doing exactly that. Bullshit you aren't interested in getting into this. You leaped on my post in great anticipation to do so. I think you realize that you have some prejudice issues and can't admit it to yourself.

Don't buy your extremely unconvincing schtick. Never have.

Good for you. I don't buy yours. When you defend racism of any sort, against any group of people, that's your failing. Not mine. I don't feel personal shame when other Filipinos do bad things.

 

[fromderinside]

Mr. Obvious speaks

Racism is a 'race' linked form of tribal discrimination. Race is an imaginary distinction arising from differences in coloration in various parts of the world between members of the human race. Other forms of racism occur arising from differences in such as height (Kenya), eye color, (northern European verses southern european) shape (oriental versus indo-european), etc. It is no different than distinctions based on heritage, language, beliefs, etc. Humans, like many vertebrates, many living species, in fact, tend to segregate over little differences between individuals over time within group or species.

This becomes a problem with social species that depend on group participation and cooperation for social survival. Humans have found that education is beneficial to their social success. Attempts to educate persons who are obviously recognizable to get past tribal tendencies is becoming a major testing issue at our current level of integration.

Scientifically it is obvious we are one species, yet we consciously process differences as if they were as important as being compatible and cooperative. IMHO unless we learn overcome knee jerk reactions to situations and differences we will not ever overcome the desire to be only with those 'like' us. We will fail to overcome this obstacle to our continued cooperative development. I am not confident we can overcome what seem to be subliminal reactions determining social behavior.

Pinker might be right. Maybe social elites, those humans seem to trust most, will lead us to want to be caring for 'others' just as they lead us to reject knives as signs of social status as masculine. Not confident though.

 

[ruby sparks]

The phrasing that seems most controversial is the "enacting American whiteness in a very traditional way" phrase.

Personally, I'm pretty much fine with it. The question for me is more whether they were enacting it or not.

 

[Gun Nut]

"There are approximately 60,000 Africans of different nationalities residing in India. Many have faced racial discrimination at some point of time during their stay in the country. Majority of Africans who have come to reside in the country are either pursuing higher studies or working."

The dark face of Indian racism
https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/the-dark-face-of-indian-racism-1.61161168

Maybe... just MAYBE, then.. Black people have something to do with inviting hate? I mean, if it isn't only white versus black, but indian and asian, and whomever else.. then shouldn't people maybe think about why that may be? The article implies they are "living out the American dream" so to speak, by being racist. Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is more accurate.. .and the simpler explanation is that black people somehow invite discrimination from everyone, not just American Whitie.

Wow. And Jews? And women who dress a certain way are just asking to be raped?

Maybe, just MAYBE, the OP article's underlying argument is correct and bigotry has nothing to do with surface differences; that they are merely focal points betraying a far deeper indoctrination?

(And, no, Occam's razor does not say the simplest explanation is "more accurate"; it states that of two explanations for an event, the one that requires the smallest number of assumptions is usually correct, or, that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely is the explanation)

Maybe.

 

[fromderinside]

Probably not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"There are approximately 60,000 Africans of different nationalities residing in India. Many have faced racial discrimination at some point of time during their stay in the country. Majority of Africans who have come to reside in the country are either pursuing higher studies or working."

The dark face of Indian racism
https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/the-dark-face-of-indian-racism-1.61161168

Maybe... just MAYBE, then.. Black people have something to do with inviting hate? I mean, if it isn't only white versus black, but indian and asian, and whomever else.. then shouldn't people maybe think about why that may be? The article implies they are "living out the American dream" so to speak, by being racist. Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is more accurate.. .and the simpler explanation is that black people somehow invite discrimination from everyone, not just American Whitie.

I can't address India, but China is racist against everyone who is not Chinese. They aren't singling out blacks.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The phrasing that seems most controversial is the "enacting American whiteness in a very traditional way" phrase.

Personally, I'm pretty much fine with it. The question for me is more whether they were enacting it or not.

You are perfectly fine with "enacting American Whiteness", or you are perfectly fine with equating racism to whiteness or to being American? Either way, eww.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The phrasing that seems most controversial is the "enacting American whiteness in a very traditional way" phrase.

Personally, I'm pretty much fine with it. The question for me is more whether they were enacting it or not.

You are perfectly fine with "enacting American Whiteness", or you are perfectly fine with equating racism to whiteness or to being American? Either way, eww.

why are you quotemining?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You are perfectly fine with "enacting American Whiteness", or you are perfectly fine with equating racism to whiteness or to being American? Either way, eww.

why are you quotemining?

Quote mining? That was the entirety of his post.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You are perfectly fine with "enacting American Whiteness", or you are perfectly fine with equating racism to whiteness or to being American? Either way, eww.

why are you quotemining?

Quote mining? That was the entirety of his post.

No it wasn't. That is a false and reckless claim. He referenced a quote "enacting American Whiteness … in a very traditional way." Instead, you 1. shortened it to "enacting American Whiteness" and 2. pretended that would mean either Whiteness or American.

Go back to the original: there is a Venn diagram between three sets: Whiteness, American, and Traditions. It's an intersection, not a union or an OR. You can't quotemine it into being either Whiteness or American.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Dude, I read his post above and hit reply including quote. I didn't snip anything out.

And so what if it's "American", "Whiteness" or "American Whiteness"? I was asking if he supports those or equates racism to any of those.