It looks as though they did agree to a certain extent that black on white racism exists just as white on any other race racism also exists. But the point is black on white racism is not responsible for cutting down the rights of all white people. Whereas white on-any-other-race racism does adversely effect the rights of whole groups, instead of just those few individuals that have caused harm.
So, basically, individuals don't matter, only groups. That's exactly the opposite of how we feel--groups have no value beyond classification, what counts is what happens to individuals.
The reason we don't get extra shit just cuz we're white is because we haven't been categorically and systemically and culturally abused, used, enslaved, mistreated or had masses of the wrong assumptions made against for thousands for years in perpetuity (with the exception of South Africa's Apartheid, which was also deemed racially divisive and then it was stopped by a combo of Nelson Mandela's guidance and the UN's interference). Other races have had that happen, in nearly every country.
Nelson Mandela's terrorism is more like it. And note what has happened to South Africa--it's pretty much turned into a shithole, like the rest of Africa.
So white South Africa's heaving an outcry over ill treatment, a lack of equal treatment under and by the law based off of race/color had a basis in fact.
And you think the black parts of Africa were any less racist?
Whites getting pissed off that they somehow do not have enough coming to them in favor is not the same thing as systemically being ill treated by other races. Because we are the majority and so we don't have a White History Month, big deal.
Looks like you're exhibiting the very problem the OP talks about.
Of course other times and places have had black on black issues, such as when the Rawandan government engage in ethnic cleansing or stood by while knowing it happened between two groups of the same race that one group said were actually two races on account of tryin to scapegoat the Tutsies, who because they were and are not Hutus, somehow caused all the economic and cultural issues of the 90s for all Rawandans. Many Hutus called the Tutsies cockroaches and a whole war broke out over it all that resulted in hundreds of thousands killed, displaced from their homelands or permanently injured/emotionally destroyed over it all.
1) The geographical position would have made it very hard for us to do anything, especially without the support of the nearby African nations. It would be very unlikely we would have gotten that--for a white man to come in and clean up their problems was totally unacceptable.
2) Given the nature of the conflict there was little we could have done anyway. There were no organized armies to swat.
3) The fundamental problem was more resources than ethnic conflict anyway--people took advantage of the strife to kill those that stood in their way.
But that does not mean that Whites suddenly have the short end of the stick and other race's having a much larger one is somehow suddenly true in any sense or case aside from, at one time in history, in South Africa.
Actually, these days the white man often gets the short end of the stick. You need to be better to succeed if you're white, in near-equal situations you're probably going to be discriminated against.
Whoa. Just whoa. Never did I say only groups matter, not individuals. You brought this whole discussion up because you are under the impression whites are being somehow harmed the country over by other races because we don't get enough priveledges when we're the ones who began dolling out and also controlling or keeping priveledges from other people. Not
all of us, if you need it spelled out so plainly, but this is just obvious whenever actually researching something like this. It about as obvious that not all blacks <enter whatever description or action here>, and also not all Indians or Asians <again enter whatever description, action, more words here>, because anybody who jumps that field is already long gone out the conversation.
Please note, in case the valid generalizations are still confusing, that this also does not apply to even most current whites who are alive today.
No one group fits with any stereotype about that group, no one group has only good, or only bad, or fits any other kind of descriptor. Maybe that'll help to elucidate more clearly that it ha never come from my way of thinking that group think or group actions or group cohesion has even really been a thing to aspire towards as it ruins individualized thought processes and achievements.
Also for me to get pissed off on any measure or about any discussion takes far more than a few off-hand, not very well put together opinion. Opinions are fine, even when hastily formed by less evidence than we have for a spacial planet similar enough to earth that it may hold, which is to wit, such a slim amount it's not all that pressing matter it needs looking at
immediately.
Also, also I cited the issues in Rawanda and South Africa to highlight that yes the black parts of African countries can and actually HAVE been racist, both towards members of their own community and to whites. Or di you skip over those bits once you saw Nelson Mandela's name in order to grind your teeth at how I somehow, by highlighting black on white and black on black racial/ethnic problems that lead to masses of violence and murder, even outright civil war must have meant . . . . what? That I was ignoring it?
I'm not sure if you are aware, but ignoring it would NOT mean calling attention to it as I clearly did in my earlier post.
And by your last comment would men with something like Affirmative Action? Cuz yeah, that does limit whites in some case, but quite a few have already noticed this an have begun slowly, quietly trying to phase affirmative action out in favor of no distinctions being held up higher than any other, hence the addition of a sound ethical statement such as': this establishment/company makes no hiring/firing decisions based off of or inhibiting race,religion, creed, color, disability, orientation/identity or sexual preference. Some have even goes on to adding that things like smoking or drug use outside work hours they do not then utilize as a means of hiring or firing somebody. Much more ethical and much less about needing to fill some kind of quota as opposed to those businesses that still have affirmative action style language usage in their by-"laws'/rules/terms an conditions of hire.
That which is above I paraphrased from the company I now work for which has more white males, only above white females than there are individuals of any other group identifier, if even identified. You see more companies are also including things like "do not wish to disclose" when it comes to race/ethnicity/color, and eve sex inside their hiring process. Of course this is voluntary so if someone does respond with their race/color/sex, or writes in whatever if its not on the little list then it only gets catalogued as a means of demographic info.
And because you're now more likely to misinterpret anything written above as you've already done so on mine and other people's posts, individuals are still considered during this whole process, on a case by case instance, not as a group, no even as a while population of employees, but one buy ne by one on their own merits, skills, abilities, metrics, successes or failures and even their own personalities.
This we must also do with every one, not group or majority, every one of our customers. No one is left out in the cold or behind in the shed, no one is ignored in our meetings or set aside for someone else out of misplaced feelings' or "thought" because sill an ability and metrics are what count for advancement and/or praise.
Of course, this is just the job sector, not the rest of society, but if you're reasonable enough to have got this far then you can include most other sectors have for houses of worship in this little shindig, cuz that were people are by the very nature of how religious groups are formed and hoe religious rules have been generated an taught quite well allowed to be discriminatory, as they always have been. Catholics do not let in the Baptists overmuch or associate with them beyond maybe just maybe agreeing they are all at least christian if they all have the same exact thoughts, conclusions and politics just that each group has to have its own separate but equal little house to go to on Sundays, nor do Jews often join in on the reindeer games played by Luciferians, and the zoroastrians while they might invite all hardly have much in common with Zeus worshippers enough to be comfortable at the dinner/worship-only the god-of-this house-please table, and all that.
But okay fine, the world is as you see it. The question remains though is does that change any other ill treatment from anyone to anyone else? Wait, wait hold on, I have to do this slowly in case it gets missed or colored different than I mean: does that help alleviate the mistreatment from an in-di-vi-dual to any other indi-vi-dual instead of making it about which group is worse off or has it better than any other. There.
Oh, waaaaait, that isn't considering that things like racism, extraneous extra priveledge based on or about color are system wide, as in relatable to groups because it's in every singular group, issues.
Sidenote: Gaynor is right in that particular individuals from a minority group walk into places expecting more than whites because they are of a minority group. I often wonder how many researchers have bothered to look into how often they do not get those extra priveleges though, so Gaynor if you see this, thanks for the food for thought.
Thus ends a rather long thought train nobody's really gonna focus on, but alas it trips naught but the seemly in me . . .. or maybe I just need sleep, lol, oh well.
A black/brown person might take it as a sign of racism ( quite unintended by you. I am sure).
