In aid of oppressed whites

[GoSeigen]

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=615074#p615074

Always amusing to see how racists consider/define racism and are all too quick to show/shout the racist card

Interesting to see the UN claiming trillions from Britain for reparations of past slavery of blacks, whilst giving no regard to the massive degrees of historic slavery of whites. In the 17th century coastal dwellers of Britain lived in constant terror of being kidnapped and sold into slavery in North Africa.

1. How do racists consider/define racism?
2. Why is it so amusing?

GS

[kempiejon]

Jonathan Pie does a bit on race https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0fst5cb

strong language and unconscious racists bias throughout.

[UncleEbenezer]

Jonathan Pie does a bit on race https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0fst5cb

strong language and unconscious racists bias throughout.

He's a send-up (bias will be not merely conscious but deliberate), and from what I've heard seems to do a decent job of doing justice to - as well as ridiculing - both sides of an argument.

[Lootman]

from what I've heard seems to do a decent job of doing justice to - as well as ridiculing - both sides of an argument.

It is often said that the far left and the far right have much more in common with each other than either would like to admit.

In much the same way I suspect that racists and the more virulent type of anti-racists we sometimes see share a number of hate-based predispositions with each other. Both seek to determine and criticise a class of people based on characteristics of identity, appearance and behaviour.

Perhaps the real sin is an over-enthusiasm for characterising people in the first place. Often no good comes from that mental process.

[Urbandreamer]

EDIT: SD's comment was rather apposite, I guess the language was inappropriate so the past got deleted? Same will happen here but frankly I do hate petty racism with some vehemence...

Like you I hate racism, but hate the idea of living in the past far worse. Nobody today in Algeria or Morocco is responsible for the depopulation of coastal villages in Ireland, England, the rest of Europe and the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade

The earliest military monument in the US commemorates those who fell in the war against these people over those actions. The US Marine's Hymn also recalls the action.

Strange then that the UN wouldn't consider that trade when considering historic slavery. But maybe not. After all it was based upon religious "rules", rather than "race".

[servodude]

EDIT: SD's comment was rather apposite, I guess the language was inappropriate so the past got deleted? Same will happen here but frankly I do hate petty racism with some vehemence...

I take issue with this.

Just because some find language offensive doesn't make it inappropriate - our language has the words because they have utility and purpose... sometimes the Fokkers are flying Messerschmitts and they need reminding of it

[Lootman]

I guess the language was inappropriate so the post got deleted? Same will happen here but frankly I do hate petty racism with some vehemence...

I do not know what was said. But there are some fairly clear rules about unacceptable and offensive language on this site. And those rules do not have exceptions for talking about this class of people but not about that class of people.

If someone claims to oppose hate and prejudice then they should oppose all forms of hate and prejudice, and not just some. And they should try and develop the emotional maturity to express that in language that is not intentionally incendiary or provocative.

[mc2fool]

EDIT: SD's comment was rather apposite, I guess the language was inappropriate so the past got deleted? Same will happen here but frankly I do hate petty racism with some vehemence...

I have the Wayback Machine browser extension installed. It's often very useful. I have it set to auto save to the Internet Archive any page I visit that hasn't already been archived in the previous 24 hours .....

[1nvest]

I guess the language was inappropriate so the post got deleted? Same will happen here but frankly I do hate petty racism with some vehemence...

I do not know what was said. But there are some fairly clear rules about unacceptable and offensive language on this site. And those rules do not have exceptions for talking about this class of people but not about that class of people.

If someone claims to oppose hate and prejudice then they should oppose all forms of hate and prejudice, and not just some. And they should try and develop the emotional maturity to express that in language that is not intentionally incendiary or provocative.

Love/hatred are personal. Opposing what others love or hate is prejudicial. All too often nowadays we are instructed rather than permitted to express ones own preferences. Vocal expression of preferences should be fine, inciting harm for reasons of preferences shouldn't. Some love cosmopolitan and insist anything else shouldn't be tolerated. We even have a home secretary of migrant descent who is proclaiming that cosmopolitanism isn't/hasn't worked, a enforced opinion is/was wrong.

[stevensfo]

EDIT: SD's comment was rather apposite, I guess the language was inappropriate so the past got deleted? Same will happen here but frankly I do hate petty racism with some vehemence...

Like you I hate racism, but hate the idea of living in the past far worse. Nobody today in Algeria or Morocco is responsible for the depopulation of coastal villages in Ireland, England, the rest of Europe and the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade

The earliest military monument in the US commemorates those who fell in the war against these people over those actions. The US Marine's Hymn also recalls the action.

Strange then that the UN wouldn't consider that trade when considering historic slavery. But maybe not. After all it was based upon religious "rules", rather than "race".

Yes, it's got rather confused and caught up with political correctness and an agenda that some people have.

Go to Malta and you'll find accounts of when the Ottoman slave-traders took children to North Africa. In the Citadel on Gozo, there's even a plaque remembering a father who killed his own family , rather than have them taken by the muslim traders. Slavery was rampant throughout history.

We had a nice holiday in Oman and learned that slavery was banned only in 1975, due to pressure from the UK government. Okay, and the Prince had been educated at Oxford!

Go to Tanzania and learn how Brits tried to stop the Arabs from taking slaves c.1920 !

But why brainwash our kids?


Steve

[MuddyBoots]

Always amusing to see how racists consider/define racism and are all too quick to show/shout the racist card

Interesting to see the UN claiming trillions from Britain for reparations of past slavery of blacks, whilst giving no regard to the massive degrees of historic slavery of whites. In the 17th century coastal dwellers of Britain lived in constant terror of being kidnapped and sold into slavery in North Africa.

1. How do racists consider/define racism?
2. Why is it so amusing?

GS[/quote]

There's something about how modern academia revised the meanings of words in the social sciences, which has been eagerly taken up by the public, but being something of a pedant I like to go into it and if necessary resist this.

The suffix -ism up till the 1930s used to mean a school of thought, tendency or movement linked with the first part the word. So, Buddhism is the movement which follows the teachings of the Buddha. Likewise, -ist is a person who belongs to that -ism. A Buddhist follows Buddhism.

So in theory, racists are anyone who believes in the existence of race which is nearly everyone - who for example put "none" in the race question of the census? There is a discussion about whether race is something physical or just a social creation which approximately aligns with the right wing and left wing. But it's all still racism in the original definition.

But for some reason in the 1930s of all times, certain uses of these suffixes began to mean something involving discrimination and/or supremacy. I need to do more research into the history to find out the who & why. So to answer question 1 I'd say I'm both a racist and not a racist depending on how we define terms.

A similar twist in definitions happened in other words like feminism and sexism. Then there's the 'phobia' words like Islamophobia or homophobia which aren't used to mean what they say on the tin, so to speak. And antisemitism, where 'semite' is used in a different way. Come to think of it, why is 'anti' used in antisemitism, when according to the modern useage of -ism it already means discrimination? Shouldn't it just be 'semitism'?

PS for question 2, I don't find this amusing, rather it's confusing!

[Lootman]

The suffix -ism up till the 1930s used to mean a school of thought, tendency or movement linked with the first part the word. So, Buddhism is the movement which follows the teachings of the Buddha. Likewise, -ist is a person who belongs to that -ism. A Buddhist follows Buddhism.

So in theory, racists are anyone who believes in the existence of race which is nearly everyone - who for example put "none" in the race question of the census? There is a discussion about whether race is something physical or just a social creation which approximately aligns with the right wing and left wing. But it's all still racism in the original definition.

There is also the word "racialism" that is sometimes used. This term appears to mean someone for whom race is an important concept which therefore informs their world view, leading them to see many things through the prism of race.

Such people may be racist of course. But they may also be inclined to bring up race or racism a lot whether relevant or not, sometimes known as "playing the race card" or "reverse racism".

[MuddyBoots]

There is also the word "racialism" that is sometimes used. This term appears to mean someone for whom race is an important concept which therefore informs their world view, leading them to see many things through the prism of race.

Such people may be racist of course. But they may also be inclined to bring up race or racism a lot whether relevant or not, sometimes known as "playing the race card" or "reverse racism".

Yes that's true, so 'racialism' would be using -ism in its traditional sense which is muddying the water. I guess I'll have to accept that the English language is messy and inconsistent with lots of exceptions based on context and the historical time when it's used.

[WickedLester]

from what I've heard seems to do a decent job of doing justice to - as well as ridiculing - both sides of an argument.

It is often said that the far left and the far right have much more in common with each other than either would like to admit.

In much the same way I suspect that racists and the more virulent type of anti-racists we sometimes see share a number of hate-based predispositions with each other. Both seek to determine and criticise a class of people based on characteristics of identity, appearance and behaviour.

Perhaps the real sin is an over-enthusiasm for characterising people in the first place. Often no good comes from that mental process.

This is a point that occurred to me about some of the more radical anti-racist groups a while ago; they appear to believe it's ok to violently assault people that are different from them by dint of the fact they don't like people that are different from them. Has either side really got the moral high ground?

Instead of:

"Black and white unite and fight, smash the BNP" I'd have have more respect for them if they chanted something like "black and white unite and vote, convince the electorate that your policies will bring greater social justice, economic wealth and good health to the populace".

[MuddyBoots]

Instead of:

"Black and white unite and fight, smash the BNP" I'd have have more respect for them if they chanted something like "black and white unite and vote, convince the electorate that your policies will bring greater social justice, economic wealth and good health to the populace".

The essence of this debate is on the wisdom of trying to unite different cultures into a multicultural society and expecting cooperation to result rather than competition. Can we all "unite" and retain our distinct cultures at the same time?

Imo the far right give priority to conserving racial and cultural heritage and their "hatred" of multiculturalism is effectively just the mirror image of their love of their homeland which they feel is threatened. They believe that unity and social cohesion is easier to achieve within a homogeneous culture. Economic diversity, hierarchy and class is probably something natural and best not suppressed, or at least it's a lower priority.

The far left prioritise class struggle instead of racial struggle, as socialism and communism are universal and (at least in theory) independent of culture. They want to get rid of economic diversity such as the class system and free market capitalism, replacing it with equality or at least ending poverty. They don't understand why race should be a barrier when class and economic power is the problem.

I'm stereotyping to some extent but they both see a need for unity of some sort, whether cultural or economic. History will tell. Perhaps controversially, I do think both positions are ultimately rooted in love rather than hate, but it's a love which feels threatened and afraid.

[servodude]

The essence of this debate is on the wisdom of trying to unite different cultures into a multicultural society and expecting cooperation to result rather than competition. Can we all "unite" and retain our distinct cultures at the same time?

Are you trying to tell me I can't have a coffee and ice-cream after my haggis pakora (brie pakora for the kids) and lamb masala next time I'm out on Sausageroll St?

[UncleEbenezer]

The essence of this debate is on the wisdom of trying to unite different cultures into a multicultural society and expecting cooperation to result rather than competition. Can we all "unite" and retain our distinct cultures at the same time?

Are you trying to tell me I can't have a coffee and ice-cream after my haggis pakora (brie pakora for the kids) and lamb masala next time I'm out on Sausageroll St?

You really shouldn't be eating all that meat!

[servodude]

Are you trying to tell me I can't have a coffee and ice-cream after my haggis pakora (brie pakora for the kids) and lamb masala next time I'm out on Sausageroll St?

You really shouldn't be eating all that meat!

It's offal innit?!

[MuddyBoots]

Are you trying to tell me I can't have a coffee and ice-cream after my haggis pakora (brie pakora for the kids) and lamb masala next time I'm out on Sausageroll St?

Ha ha, I'm not telling you what to do, just trying to characterise the dissident politics. What I find strange is that the liberal mainstream insists that we all have a well defined and distinct racial identity according to their categories in the census (who defines those?). Liberals want us to be divided up for their statistical analysis, yet at the same time encourage the type of cultural mixing you describe. If most of us, immigrants included, are living that way already, then all this identity politics is just a story.

[servodude]

Are you trying to tell me I can't have a coffee and ice-cream after my haggis pakora (brie pakora for the kids) and lamb masala next time I'm out on Sausageroll St?

Ha ha, I'm not telling you what to do, just trying to characterise the dissident politics. What I find strange is that the liberal mainstream insists that we all have a well defined and distinct racial identity according to their categories in the census (who defines those?). Liberals want us to be divided up for their statistical analysis, yet at the same time encourage the type of cultural mixing you describe. If most of us, immigrants included, are living that way already, then all this identity politics is just a story.

I think there's the one story with a few different interpretations