Aryan Youths Commit Racial Harassment

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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"?

Leaving off "... in a very traditional way" is quotemining. Reducing it to "American" is illogical. Reducing it to "Whiteness" is illogical.

I was asking if he supports those or equates racism to any of those.

You were making declarations about him based on incompletely representing text.

Please stop trying to justify it.

 

[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"?

Leaving off "... in a very traditional way" is quotemining. Reducing it to "American" is illogical. Reducing it to "Whiteness" is illogical.

I was asking if he supports those or equates racism to any of those.

You were making declarations about him based on incompletely representing text.

Please stop trying to justify it.

You are just upset that I read his post without reading yours too. I snipped nothing from his post. Sucks to be you I guess?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Leaving off "... in a very traditional way" is quotemining. Reducing it to "American" is illogical. Reducing it to "Whiteness" is illogical.



You were making declarations about him based on incompletely representing text.

Please stop trying to justify it.

You are just upset that I read his post without reading yours too. I snipped nothing from his post. Sucks to be you I guess?

I am not upset. I am telling you that quotemining is a bad practice. Neither way of abbreviating the referenced quote captures the meaning. It may be offensive to say, but racism is in fact an historical tradition of American whiteness. Traditions are not universal to every member of a group, but rather widely accepted. If a non-White person or a 2nd generation American has this perception, then they may take part in the historical custom as a way to earn greater acceptance....the fact that these guys seemed to be surrounded by American white people, positively interacting with them seems to support this idea. It does not mean all white people = racist because it's not universal and it's half historical. The author states that race is a concept, i.e. a social construct and so your posts about it are over-simplifications. Leaving out these words does no justice to ideas.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I am not upset. I am telling you that quotemining is a bad practice. Neither way of abbreviating the referenced quote captures the meaning.

I still don't know what you are on about. Maybe you should tell Ruby Sparks this then? Did he quote mine you? Because all I did was quote him in the entirety of what he wrote. I snipped nothing. I abbreviated nothing. I didn't read your post. And my post to him was one seeking clarification, and one he has not responded to.

It may be offensive to say, but racism is in fact an historical tradition of American whiteness.

Yes. That's somewhat offensive and a little different than calling it "Whiteness" or calling it "American Whiteness" as Ruby just did. Would you be objecting so strenuously if somebody had written that street violence is "American Blackness" and then somebody else comes along to explain that street violence in fact has a historical tradition in American Blackness? And then lays down the caveats that not all black people are street thugs of course, but many street thugs are black, etc. No.... I don't think you would. How about if they then watched some music videos and thought that "Fuck the po - lice" was part of Black Culture and they took part in this "historical custom" as a way to earn greater acceptance? How about if they then tell you that this doesn't mean all black people are this, because its not universal. And this author states that race is a concept, ie. a social construct and that your objection to all this blatant racism is over-simplifcation?

Um no. Fuck racism. Fuck prejudice. If a brown guy is being racist towards a black guy, that's not the fault of "whiteness". Its his own damn fault. And I say that as a brown guy.

 

[ruby sparks]

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with saying that in America, racism against blacks, by whites, was traditional, and still is, albeit to a lesser extent. It’s just a fact.

I still don’t know if it’s fair to say that the Indian men were enacting it, and I think I’m a bit less leaning that way than you, don, but I’m undecided, mostly because of a lack of information and understanding (I don’t live in America for starters, so reported current behaviours and interactions often feel literally foreign to me).

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with saying that in America, racism against blacks, by whites, was traditional, and still is, albeit to a lesser extent. It’s just a fact.

That it is and was common, sure. That is is "Whiteness" or "American Whiteness" or has any inherent connection to being white, hell no. Its racist tradition. its not White Tradition. There are plenty of white people who are and never have been racist and who don't have friends who are either. East Indian men are often disrespectful of women. Strippers often avoid dancing for them and say they are the worst customers. If a white guy walks in and treats them badly, are they just "enacting Indian Browness"?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with saying that in America, racism against blacks, by whites, was traditional, and still is, albeit to a lesser extent. It’s just a fact.

That it is and was common, sure. That is is "Whiteness" or "American Whiteness" or has any inherent connection to being white, hell no. Its racist tradition. its not White Tradition. There are plenty of white people who are and never have been racist and who don't have friends who are either. East Indian men are often disrespectful of women. Strippers often avoid dancing for them and say they are the worst customers. If a white guy walks in and treats them badly, are they just "enacting Indian Browness"?

No that's ridiculous. If there is a history of widely accepted sexism among Indian Hindu men, Arabic Muslim men, or White Christian men, such statements could be made. It's a question of what makes a thing an historical custom...which is the wide acceptance at some point. Racism and slavery were legal in the US making it majority enforced by white mdn and we've not completely conquered it yet. You can't say the same about violence on the streets by blacks, like you alluded to before. It's not a custom, just offensive to say. It's not rare, but even so it's never been majority favorable by blacks. Now what about masculinism by Muslims in Saudi Arabia, I think it would be a fair analogy. Likewise, if historically Hinduism had systemic indoctrinated sexism, one could make some statements, but not browness since racial distinction is not at play. That would not make sense.

Also, in the op event, the Indian Americans were taunting blacks, using european derived racist words, interacting with whites, and seemingly looking for acceptance by them. None of those elements are in your analogy.

You'd have to modify it to white guys moving to India trying to become Hindus (assuming still sexism is a tradition of hinduism) and then the men beat their wives calling them something derogatory in an Indian language. Then it might be fair to say "enacting Hindu masculinism in a very traditional way" even if some Hindus in modern times are very egalitarian. You might also say the same about lesbians in the same situation-the analogy would work because the author was using whiteness as a social construct in the same way I use masculinism. Maybe.

I don't know why you keep over simplifying things but discusding it is too much work, explaining complexity over and over without seeing grasping nuances. If you are pretending not to get it to score political points that is even worse.

 

[Trausti]

So the lesson, apparently, is that the Indian boys lack agency. They cannot think or act for themselves. They've been bewitched by the White Devil. Yeah, totally not a religion.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So the lesson, apparently, is that the Indian boys lack agency. They cannot think or act for themselves. They've been bewitched by the White Devil. Yeah, totally not a religion.

No one said that except you.

 

[ruby sparks]

If there is a history of widely accepted sexism among Indian Hindu men, Arabic Muslim men, or White Christian men, such statements could be made. It's a question of what makes a thing an historical custom...which is the wide acceptance at some point. Racism and slavery were legal in the US making it majority enforced by white mdn and we've not completely conquered it yet. You can't say the same about violence on the streets by blacks, like you alluded to before. It's not a custom, just offensive to say. It's not rare, but even so it's never been majority favorable by blacks. Now what about masculinism by Muslims in Saudi Arabia, I think it would be a fair analogy. Likewise, if historically Hinduism had systemic indoctrinated sexism, one could make some statements, but not browness since racial distinction is not at play. That would not make sense.

Broadly, yes.

Just briefly on the comparison with saying something similar about, say, blacks and violence. There's a conversation to be had about this comparison, that could be had between reasonable and intelligent people, but falsely equating the two is obviously just extremely lazy. They are different phenomena, with different patterns of manifestation (and indeed perception of manifestation) and the causes are likely very different.

You might note that that implies that I would go along with saying that there is such a thing as a problematically violent black subculture in the USA, that is to say it is associated with black culture. However, if I were to elaborate somewhat and, say, suggest some factors that might explain or cause it, to the extent that it exists, and also have a look at its actual extent/incidence (as opposed to its perceived or reported incidence) I think it could not reasonably be called racist. Indeed I might cite racism as one of the causes, as many academics do. That said, the same remark could be deemed racist, or indeed be racist, if made by someone who, for instance, offered different explanations, imo.

In any case, that is all actually separate from whether racism against blacks, by whites, was what could be called traditional, or as you put it a historical custom and widely accepted, in the USA. It was, on its own terms.

 

[ruby sparks]

Also, in the op event, the Indian Americans were taunting blacks, using european derived racist words, interacting with whites, and seemingly looking for acceptance by them. None of those elements are in your analogy.

Where did you get that the perpetrators were looking for acceptance from the whites that were there?

 

[ruby sparks]

And if, as seems to be the case, they were English-speaking American men, then I don't know how much weight to give to them using American English words. As for interacting, what interactions do you mean? It would be surprising if there were not whites nearby.

I hope you are not constructing one plausible narrative from many, based on very little.

Who urinates on (black) women in public nowadays in America? I'm not at all sure we can blame the remnants of a racist tradition for that, in 2019. It's possible we should not even be trying to and I'm not particularly inclined to do it. Seems like ugly racism and sexism combined to me. The role, if any, of cultural enacting, even if present, is surely secondary and possibly tertiary, unless a case can be made for it based on more good evidence.