White Supremacy

1356716

Comments

  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    Honestly, I think the drama of the discussion is more likely to hamper us from actually hearing each other than to increase responses. But who knows. I would be interested in what people think about less dramatic or accusing versions of the statement lilbuddha made. Do you think that white people generally stay neutral on issues of oppression because it's safer? Do you think we generally stay uninformed because to do the opposite would require action? Do you think that racism is a major (albeit perhaps unconscious) driver in the actions of many people in your country? Why or why not?
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    And so now you've shown that you can trigger white liberals just as well as the next person. So... well done?
    Your response in particular implied that people in general are comforatable taking about white supremacy.
    Nonsense. My response was that people in general are put off by provocative statements about their race.
    This is a space for discussion. Triggered is not an excuse for failing to engage.
    Nobody needs an excuse to not engage with you, but deliberate provocation will probably make it more likely.
    Dave W wrote: »
    I.e., talking about white supremacy made you uncomfortable.
    Which implies that I am falsely projecting. Again, a generalisation is only wrong when it does not apply generally, not when it doesn't apply specifically.
    It implies nothing of the sort. But it notes that you have experienced the discomfort that you specifically ascribed to "white people." If you agree it doesn't apply to all white people, or even only white people, you can't reasonably be disappointed in the reactions to your provocation.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    edited August 12
    Gwai wrote: »
    Do you think that white people generally stay neutral on issues of oppression because it's safer? Do you think we generally stay uninformed because to do the opposite would require action? Do you think that racism is a major (albeit perhaps unconscious) driver in the actions of many people in your country? Why or why not?

    "White people" in the US means millions of people. I think there's a range on all these questions. To me personally the key thing is that I am able to avoid considering race and racism whenever I want because I'm white.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited August 12
    Good questions, Gwai.

    I think many people avoid public confrontation with racist behaviour in the UK because racist attitudes are associated with a propensity for violence. Is that cowardice or prudence? Police advice in the UK is to report physical violence to them, and not to get involved in trying to stop it.

    Curiously enough, you get similar reactions to people being foul mouthed on public transport. Particularly if it comes from a gang. It can feel very intimidating.

    I don't think it means folks feel in any way neutral. Maybe there is some element of self preservation involved? It sounds rather like 'passing by on the other side' (different to the good Samaritan). It can feel like that. Confronting politically by peaceful group protest or political involvement is safer. I've done both of those things

    Personally I am concerned that racism underlies the hostile attitudes to immigration in the UK which have fuelled many Brexiteers. There was direct public evidence of that immediately after the referendum result. As I said earlier, I think it is the re-emergence of innate, atavistic, tribalism. A fear of strangers, of others who are different, may be an evolutionary development, or if not a gene a meme.
  • @Gwai I think people have no difficulty in identifying, ‘you black bastard’ or ‘go back to where you came from’ as racist / xenophobic and I think that in the abstract most people understand that structural inequality exists. I also think few people in the uk would agree with explicit white supremicist ideology.

    I think people - not just white people, we have racism & xenophobia at/between multiple ethnic communities in the uk - are poor at recognising institutional racism/xenophobia in practice. (And then there is a subset of pedantry where people say, it’s not a phobia or anti-Muslim sentiment is not racist because it’s a religion not a race, ignoring entirely that people target those who *look like* what they think Muslims look like.)

    There is a very similar issue with attitudes towards people with disabilities. Part of the issue is the way that fairness is taught, simplistically, from a young age. This cartoon somewhat captures what I am getting at - but imagine the issue is poverty, social exclusion or whatever else rather than height. People think the promotion of equality fixes things, rather than see the need for equity.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Agree with Doublethink (xpost). It's not what you expect that happens. You need to inspect to see if it is happening.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited August 12
    Also it is worth saying that a large proportion of folk in the uk live in areas that are overwhelming white, not because of colonisation or white flight or anything else - just because that’s the ethnic make up of the country. So the answer to, why do you have no black friends, or why don’t you socialise with poc folks etc can legitimately be that - there’s nobody of that background in my immediate social world.

    I remember it being news when I was a child when the local town got a black traffic warden, because there were no other black families in that area at all. There were, however, many families who were recent immigrants or 2nd/3rd generation immigrants, almost all white Europeans - a fair few descended from ww2 pows held in the area who married into the local community, or who had been refugees or free fighters during the way.
  • We are not an anglophone culture that happens to be more or less in Europe; we are a european country that happens to speak English.

    Nowhere is that more visible than in matters of race, which we do (actually) in a pretty much european fashion, with its queasiness about (or attempts to erase, or sanctify) our colonial past and a white indigenous (more or less) population.

    The other point that no-one has made is that the real disruptive factor is class. Class cuts aross race in terms of privilege, the protection of which is the aim of the US supremacist movement.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Where I grew up (in the 70s and early 80s) there were no BME faces. My secondary school had 900 pupils, none of them BME, and my sixth form college, despite being urban rather than rural, likewise. There was one lad from a Chinese family in my maths class at 6th form. That was it, I think.

    People (younger, more urban) have used that as evidence against me to show I'm some unreconstructed racist. I mean, I might be, but that was just how rural England was, and for the large part still is.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    In the small primary school which my four children have attended over nearly two decades the number of BAME children at any time could have been counted on my fingers - usually one hand only. The much larger church primary serving the same community probably never had more than 10 at any one time. The local secondary school (600 or so children) was very similar. That is the reality of the ethnic mix of this largely rural area.

    Racism probably does exist in our community, but it rarely has cause to raise its head. Xenophobia, however, against Poles or Romanians, is a bit more evident, though rarely openly stated, and not usually by people who actually know any Poles or Romanians.
  • In my Primary School, people whose families had recently arrived from Europe, especially people of Italian or Greek extraction, were subject to racist vilification. But people who spoke English with a notable accent were also fair game. I can't remember any asian, indian, arab or black kids in my school at all. There were Arab people around, but they would likely have been taken for Greeks. That was 70's Australia, insular and bigoted. Only some of the targets have changed.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    I.e., talking about white supremacy made you uncomfortable.
    Which implies that I am falsely projecting. Again, a generalisation is only wrong when it does not apply generally, not when it doesn't apply specifically.
    It implies nothing of the sort. But it notes that you have experienced the discomfort that you specifically ascribed to "white people." If you agree it doesn't apply to all white people, or even only white people, you can't reasonably be disappointed in the reactions to your provocation.
    This is silly as no generalisation applies to al of a group.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Good questions, Gwai.

    I think many people avoid public confrontation with racist behaviour in the UK because racist attitudes are associated with a propensity for violence. Is that cowardice or prudence? Police advice in the UK is to report physical violence to them, and not to get involved in trying to stop it.
    I disagree that racism is strictly associated with violence. You have not been followed in shops, you have not had police stop their conversion when you walk into a cafe. You have not experienced "curious" enquiries whilst your white partner is ignored.
    Nearly everyone has experienced "I'm not racist, but..." and that is not violent. But that is the sort of racism that typically goes unchecked.
    As far as fear of violence, that is a thing. But sometimes not as much a thing as purported. For example, being in a shop full of people where one person says something racist and the others turn away or pretend they did not hear. Many people v one, but the one is not challenged.
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Personally I am concerned that racism underlies the hostile attitudes to immigration in the UK which have fuelled many Brexiteers. There was direct public evidence of that immediately after the referendum result. As I said earlier, I think it is the re-emergence of innate, atavistic, tribalism. A fear of strangers, of others who are different, may be an evolutionary development, or if not a gene a meme.
    Change and perceived instability cause fear and fear strengthens tribalism. As do our politicians and media by trumpeting those fears.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Where I grew up (in the 70s and early 80s) there were no BME faces. My secondary school had 900 pupils, none of them BME, and my sixth form college, despite being urban rather than rural, likewise. There was one lad from a Chinese family in my maths class at 6th form. That was it, I think.

    People (younger, more urban) have used that as evidence against me to show I'm some unreconstructed racist. I mean, I might be, but that was just how rural England was, and for the large part still is.
    Living in a homogeneous group is more likely to foster racism and other forms of xenophobia. It doesn't mean one will become so, but it ups the odds. A problem, though is self-perception. Much of the racism that is natural here is the more quiet sort. The "I don't hate, so I am not racist" sort. The unease, the discomfort. It is not inherently unchangeable, but it needs awareness to be able to change.
    Humans are not great at awareness.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    I.e., talking about white supremacy made you uncomfortable.
    Which implies that I am falsely projecting. Again, a generalisation is only wrong when it does not apply generally, not when it doesn't apply specifically.
    It implies nothing of the sort. But it notes that you have experienced the discomfort that you specifically ascribed to "white people." If you agree it doesn't apply to all white people, or even only white people, you can't reasonably be disappointed in the reactions to your provocation.
    This is silly as no generalisation applies to al of a group.

    I find it interesting that when the group has black skin that fact means one can't make generalisations, but when the group has white skin it means one can.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    We are not an anglophone culture that happens to be more or less in Europe; we are a european country that happens to speak English.

    Nowhere is that more visible than in matters of race, which we do (actually) in a pretty much european fashion, with its queasiness about (or attempts to erase, or sanctify) our colonial past and a white indigenous (more or less) population.

    The other point that no-one has made is that the real disruptive factor is class. Class cuts aross race in terms of privilege, the protection of which is the aim of the US supremacist movement.
    Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but IME class does not cut across race. Race cuts across class. A rich black person will not suffer all the indignities that a poor one might and might be above a poor white person in many cases, but will black doesn't wipe off. A black person is received by colour and class, not just class. Only white people get that.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    The denial was to the absolutist way in which you phrased the statement. The provocativeness got in the way of the point being made, it seems to me.
    Maybe a poor choice.
    However, I still don't think a nuanced post would have got any response.

    And yet you say the post you did make isn't getting the response you wanted either.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    edited August 12
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Living in a homogeneous group is more likely to foster racism and other forms of xenophobia.

    There's a certain amount of tribalism that arises against near-neighbours, but those from 'far away' aren't seen as a threat. When I was growing up it was the rivalries between villages that predominated, not between a village and the residents of some distant town.

    Class was, and remains, a much more important distinction, and the idea of my village representing a 'homogeneous group' is frankly laughable. There were the poor (who knew their place) and the rich (who also knew their place). Things broke down a bit, for a while, then the house prices rose out of all proportion to wages and you now can't buy so much as one brick standing on another for less than half a million.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    I'm not convinced race and class are independent variables, though.

    In purely economic terms, even if a black middle-class person has more economic power than a white working-class person, the problem is that various forms of systemic racism, plus the fact that most immigrants have historically started off at the bottom*, mean that it's harder for a black person to get into the middle classes to start with.

    And if by 'middle class' we mean holding a particular set of social and behavioural characteristics (fill in the blank: '___, that's so middle-class'), then it probably is true that (say) a middle-class Asian would find more acceptance among middle-class white people than a working-class white person would, but that's only achieved by virtue of the Asian person having abandoned, at least whilst among their white friends, those things that are distinctively Asian.


    (* Though I suppose this is no longer true for the most recent generation of immigrants, inasmuch as it's very hard to get a visa unless the job you've got the visa for pays more than the median.)
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Gwai wrote: »
    Do you think that racism is a major (albeit perhaps unconscious) driver in the actions of many people in your country? Why or why not?

    I think tribalism is universal - something we all experience to a greater or lesser extent. Asking of another person "is he one of us ?" and then being more interested in the person, more willing to help, more ready to judge favourably, if the answer is yes.

    The extent to which that "one of us" judgment takes into account race (rather than accent, class, culture, religion, politics etc) is of no great consequence. The phenomenon is essentially no different when race is involved.

    What is different about race is that it is visual and thus immediate and thus tends to superficial judgments. If you think having different colour skin makes someone not "one of us" then you can work that out without ever getting close enough to talk to them.

    On the other hand, I think hate is very far from universal. Most people are decent to the other people they meet, unless they've been taught that particular groups (protestants, blacks, nationalists, whatever) are either non-persons or are unrepentant wrongdoers who thus deserve to be punished.

    Seeing white supremacist groups as being an extreme case of a thing called "racism" is about as helpful as seeing jihadist terrorists as being an extreme case of Islam.











  • Is "BME" black minority ethnicity? Must be a narrow term used in UK? Never heard of it. We'd use "brown people" as a better more inclusive term where black people are a much rarer group.

    But there's no unitary identity among any alleged racial group. My Nova Scotia brother in law has limited things in common with my Caribbean soccer teammates and Nigerian friend. Though they are all brown people (you'd say black, my b-i-l would say nigga if you said that).
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Living in a homogeneous group is more likely to foster racism and other forms of xenophobia.

    There's a certain amount of tribalism that arises against near-neighbours, but those from 'far away' aren't seen as a threat. When I was growing up it was the rivalries between villages that predominated, not between a village and the residents of some distant town.

    Class was, and remains, a much more important distinction, and the idea of my village representing a 'homogeneous group' is frankly laughable.
    It isn't laughable, it is variable. If people share a particular trait (homogeneity), they will use others to group by. If people come on from the outside, especially with an easily discernible difference, their will typically be a group response to the intruders. Royston Vasey might be a parody, but it parodies something real. But with the telly and the wireless, people do not need to directly experience the other to react to it.
    cf Brexit voting patterns.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Is "BME" black minority ethnicity? Must be a narrow term used in UK? Never heard of it. We'd use "brown people" as a better more inclusive term where black people are a much rarer group.

    But there's no unitary identity among any alleged racial group.
    This is not precisely true. An Afro-Caribbean and a Nigerian might see themselves as distinct groups, but find a unifying identity when dealing with racism. We are different, but we are black. Identity is not a single thing, differing identities can have a common thread.

  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    I think it is interesting that we are discussing only various black ethnicities and the prejudice they face although many posters are saying their countries do not have very many people who fit that description. Who is racism against in your country then? It seems too easy to focus on groups you don't have as many of. I can think of groups in the UK or Canada that I would gather from the media are more common and still face significant prejudice.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    Gwai asked; "Who is racism against in your country then?"

    As a response to the shootings in and around the Mosques in Christchurch my response as someone who currently lives in that city was to begin to investigate the effects of colonialism in Aotearoa/NZ. This was because it is Maori, the Tangata Whenua (People of the Land) who experience widespread institutional and casual racism. To put it simply, but I hope not over simplistically they are, as a group, over-represented in the negative statistics (imprisonment, suicide, early death, unemployment, and homelessness), and underrepresented in most of the positive ones (graduation from University, Members of Parliament or in the Business world). I'm not sure about the stats for All Blacks* who identify as Maori, but rugby players would be among the most world famous Maori.

    I am, as far as I can discover from those tracing my family tree on both sides of my family, and from family stories, totally Pakeha (non-Maori).

    I have started by reading articles by Maori academics and have attended some classes about the Treaty of Waitangi, NZ's founding document, signed in 1840 by representatives of the British Crown and over 500 Maori chiefs.

    I'm not sure where I will go from here, but I will consult people with more expertise than I have, both from Project Waitangi and some Maori academics.


    *All Blacks are NZ's national rugby team, so named because on an early tour of Great Brittan they wore a totally black uniform and the British newspapers dubbed them "All Blacks"
  • Is "BME" black minority ethnicity? Must be a narrow term used in UK? Never heard of it. We'd use "brown people" as a better more inclusive term where black people are a much rarer group.

    But there's no unitary identity among any alleged racial group. My Nova Scotia brother in law has limited things in common with my Caribbean soccer teammates and Nigerian friend. Though they are all brown people (you'd say black, my b-i-l would say nigga if you said that).

    Not all ethnic minorities have darker skin. Many will, but some can "pass" as white but still experience discrimination for name, language, lifestyle etc. BME could include GRT (Gypsy, Roma and Traveller) communities, many if not most of whom would not be seen as black or brown.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited August 13
    A white Polish man was murdered shortly after the Brexit vote, death threats were put through the doors of Polish families in Huntingdon - there were a series of violent incidents to the extent that formal representations were made by the Polish government to the UK.

    Those targeted weren’t passing as white, they were white (by which I mean Caucasian). Prejudice in the UK is often against foreigners, mostly specifically recognised by not speaking English fluently or speaking English with a recognisably foreign accent.

    Accent, like skin colour, is not usually removable at will. (It is also often a marker of class, and provokes prejudice for that reason.)

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36656348
  • One of the more laughable bits of discrimination based on ethnicity I was taught was a warning about the Dutch. I assume this prejudice originated in England as a result of the longstanding trade links between the English and the Low Countries, but it could easily have just been because they spoke with a weird accent. Some of my best friends are clog-wearers...

    Huia, I applaud your efforts to educate yourself about NZ's indigenous peoples. I'm not sure of the situation there, but the version of Australian History I was taught was almost devoid of content about Aboriginal Australians. Our history was taught as Colonisation, convicts, rum rebellion, sheep, exploration, squatters, gold fever, bushrangers, war war war, and here we are, and aren't we young and free. This has begun to change but because of the suppression of information about the way the land came into the possession of colonists (apart from some dodgy fables), we are only now starting to reconstruct this history. This, combined with a growing awareness of the survival, if not the flourishing of the varied Aboriginal cultures of this land, has changed the conversation a bit, and encouraged much academic effort. This is a long way of saying that I am on a similar journey to you, and YAY!

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    lilBuddha

    I take your point about the link between racism and violence. I was thinking about verbally aggressive behaviour as a warning sign of potential physical aggression. But my post omitted that point. Bad wording.

    I also agree with Doublethink re prejudice against foreigners who are recogniseably white. Accent differences are not as easily recognisable as skin colour differences, but they are still markers of difference and may stimulate innate tribalism.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited August 13
    I was talking to a black colleague, who held quite a senior position in our organisation. She told me that more junior colleagues had told her she got so far because, ‘you sound like them’. I think that in terms of prejudice holding people back, there’s a lot of truth in that. It’s not just accent, it’s also habits of speech such as the degree of directness. Essentially, different norms of behaviour.

    You can see racial stratification and you can see it change. Some time back in big organisations the cleaners and cooks tended to be black, now they tend to be white European immigrants. I think the common thread, is first or second generation immigrants - rather than race specifically.

    You can see this in the public reaction to the windrush scandal, 50yrs ago the tabloids would not have been on the victims’ side (and by extension would have assumed their readership weren’t).
  • (Obviously prejudice based on skin colour is still widespread in the UK, but I do think it is breaking down amongst young people.)
  • Immigrant prejudice is in plague proportions in Australia. It is especially convenient if an immigrant has an identifying feature, such as Islamic dress, Greek women in widow's weeds, skin colour, daring to speak foreign tongues in public and the like.

    It is no use to point out similar habits and styles of dress in the ancestors of inhabitants of the British Isles. People just look at you.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited August 13
    The queen used to be quite a prominent hijab wearer - it is amazing how many islamphobes seem to have forgotten this - or the original, religious, reasons that ladies are supposed cover their heads in public and thus why the queen so often wears a hat.

    And here she is in a hijab and a burka.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited August 13
    Well, they call it a burka in Yemen, everywhere else it would be called an Abaya.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    Simon my brother who is 6 years younger than I was taught a much better understanding of Maori issues, particularly the Land Wars and the Treaty than I was. Of course it didn't hurt that the history teacher he had is Maori and a trained lawyer. That teacher is now an academic, and I have learnt a lot from his articles.

    I found that once I became more aware of the impact of discrimination, the more I could understand the ramifications. For example a Maori medical professor researching health issues experienced by Maori got better co-operation from the subjects of her research and thereby was able to reach finding that benefited Maori in general.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    cf Brexit voting patterns.
    AIUI Brexit voting patterns correlate strongly with education levels.
    That doesn't necessarily mean that Remainers voted wholly on rational grounds: self-identifying as the kind of cosmopolitan person who never knowingly reads the Daily Wail would be a factor.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    The strongest correlations for voting Brexit were level of education, job type, age and income, in that order. Whether you were white made almost no difference at all. Source.

    Whether or not you voted Brexit based on racist factors (given that 36% of BME voted Leave) is a much more granular discussion, although I have little doubt that all the racists did, in fact, vote Leave.
  • I used to live in a vastly multicultural northern English city and now live in rural Scotland, where they let us English in!


    But the most blatent (recent ) racism i heard was Here. It was immediatly called out and the people in question now know not to go there again.

    .
    But here's the thing. White Supremacy hasn't really got the same history in the UK as it has in the USA. We speak the same language but we have way different histories.
    .
    The UK is not without blame though. We do have blatent revolting rascists, everywhere.
    But until very recently did we have white supremacists? What is the history there?
    .

  • Ethne Alba--

    Ummmm...respectfully, wasn't that a great deal of what the empire was all about?
  • I think a history of colonial empire is different to a history of chattel slavery. Not saying that either is more or less excusable than the other, just that they are different.

    Colonial history is the reason why most of the racism I encounter here is directed primarily at Arabs rather than black people.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Ethne Alba--

    Ummmm...respectfully, wasn't that a great deal of what the empire was all about?

    It was British (specifically English) supremacy, not white supremacy, although that was/became part of it. Britain has invaded every country in the world, bar 22.
  • European attitudes towards other peoples in the colonial era was dominated by the idea that they were the most advanced because they were inherently better. All of our thought is shot through with this axiomatic belief. It was the death of empire too, as Europeans failed to prepare for the impending threat of Imperial Japan in the 1930's. They just didn't think they could be outsmarted or out-fought by those little yellow men.

    Our forebears didn't recognise their white supremacy because it was woven into their culture.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Britain has invaded every country in the world, bar 22.

    I'm not sure Norway counts, given that the only reason we sent troops there was to try to get rid of the Nazis who had already occupied it.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Britain has invaded every country in the world, bar 22.

    I'm not sure Norway counts, given that the only reason we sent troops there was to try to get rid of the Nazis who had already occupied it.
    Of course it counts. We literally invaded Norway. That the Germans also invaded Norway is only relevant for a "Map of places Britain had a passable excuse to invade".
  • The only real cure of white supremacy is non-white nations and cultures continuing to take power away from the Euro-American ruling classes. All the white liberal navel gazing, "woke" pissing contests, and mutual scolding don't substitute for that.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    An Afro-Caribbean and a Nigerian might see themselves as distinct groups, but find a unifying identity

    And do you see anything intrinsically wrong or problematic with this finding of an identity based on skin colour ?
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Britain has invaded every country in the world, bar 22.

    I'm not sure Norway counts, given that the only reason we sent troops there was to try to get rid of the Nazis who had already occupied it.
    Of course it counts. We literally invaded Norway. That the Germans also invaded Norway is only relevant for a "Map of places Britain had a passable excuse to invade".

    Sure, but if you're trying to paint a picture of an Empire-building nation convinced of its own supremacy then including times when we've tried to save another nation from invaders - at the request of that nation's legitimate government, no less - is a bit disingenuous.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    I think a history of colonial empire is different to a history of chattel slavery. Not saying that either is more or less excusable than the other, just that they are different.

    I’m not sure those two things can be easily separated. One of the big consequences of the colonial empire was the spread of chattel slavery.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    The only real cure of white supremacy is non-white nations and cultures continuing to take power away from the Euro-American ruling classes.

    I don't see how China and India gaining power - or Uganda and Nigeria, for that matter - helps black people in the US or the UK.
  • "Ruth wrote: »
    I don't see how China and India gaining power - or Uganda and Nigeria, for that matter - helps black people in the US or the UK.

    Nor do I. People of color have to organize and fight for themselves, as they have done and must continue to do. Governments are unreliable, as are white liberal "allies".

This discussion has been closed.