Rossweisse RIP Rossweisse, HellHost and long-time Shipmate.

Robert Armin RIP Robert Armin, Shipmate of long-standing.

White Supremacy

11011121315

Comments

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    An extra sentence or two noting this significant but widely unknown fact would not require an in-depth article.

    When the Boston marathon was bombed in 2013 everybody was scrambling to examine conditions in Chechnya and when/where/how the Tsarnaev brothers were radicalized.

    When the media is so eager to jump down Trump's throat for infractions big and small, the omission of the fact that he is arming Neo-Nazis doesn't look like an innocent oversight.
    NPR is as close to neutral as America has. The typical bias accusation against them is from the right, the threat to their funding is from the right. The implication that they are intentionally obscuring something Trump is doing is a bit odd.

    Yes, I’m not sure you can build a strong argument saying that NPR would ever do anything to throw the Trump Administration in a positive light. I’m a frequent NPR listener and I’ve never heard them report anything with even a vaguely conservative spin. Plus, as lilbuddha notes, the right hates NPR.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    If by "neutral" you mean centrist, pro-status quo, etc. Of course NPR is superior to almost any other American mainstream source but it's still pretty bad. Leftists (e.g. Noam Chomsky, Max Blumenthal) have been noting NPR's bias for decades. FAIR have done a good job taking them to task over the years.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Racism can be a mixed and complex thing. Calling a sports team the redskins is not the same thing as would be calling a team the blackfaces. Whilst the word redskins is racist, it was chosen because the "respect" for the brave, Indian warrior, not something one can say for blackface.
    It is still racist as fuck. It is actually a perfect example of implicit racism/white privilege/etc. White people say "We are honouring natives by acknowledging their martial prowess." and believe they not being racist.

    I was surprised by the idea of "respect" as you note. The history seems quite remote in time. I found a link which seems to describe the history of the name https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-brief-history-of-the-word-redskin-and-how-it-became-a-source-of-controversy/2016/05/19/062cd618-187f-11e6-9e16-2e5a123aac62_story.html

  • If by "neutral" you mean centrist, pro-status quo, etc. Of course NPR is superior to almost any other American mainstream source but it's still pretty bad. Leftists (e.g. Noam Chomsky, Max Blumenthal) have been noting NPR's bias for decades. FAIR have done a good job taking them to task over the years.

    They certainly aren’t the Daily Worker, and are more centrist than most, but that hardly means they’re going to go easy on Trump.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    Right, they'll go after Trump about a lot of things, as long as it doesn't raise disturbing questions about the general foreign policy establishment. On some issues, e.g., Venezuela, they are basically on the same page as Trump.
  • If by "neutral" you mean centrist, pro-status quo, etc. Of course NPR is superior to almost any other American mainstream source but it's still pretty bad. Leftists (e.g. Noam Chomsky, Max Blumenthal) have been noting NPR's bias for decades. FAIR have done a good job taking them to task over the years.
    By neutral I mean reporting without a bias. Pro Status Quo? That is an odd accusation as well. The truth is neither left nor right. A news agency should not have an agenda. But this is getting too far from the topic at hand for me.
  • Yeah, Neo-Nazis have nothing to do with white supremacy.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    Yeah, Neo-Nazis have nothing to do with white supremacy.
    Neo Nazi's do. Sorting out what is really media bias, less so. There is more racist bias in left-wing American media than in NPR anyway.
  • I get it. White supremacists are fine if they're shooting at Russians.
  • What an incredibly bizarre conclusion. It so defies logic that I cannot connect the dots in how you arrived at it.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    Someone who thinks it's normal for Swedish people to be white, in exactly the same way that they expect Nigerians to be black and Japanese to be oriental, is no more a white supremacist than they are a black supremacist or an east Asian supremacist.

    Normal is a rather loaded word. It can be a mere statement of frequency, but it can also imply a value judgement - that things that are abnormal are undesirable.

    Fair comment. Language can be ambiguous, and people judge from context and tone of voice what is intended. (Which is why there's more room for misunderstandings online).

    Is "usual" a better word choice than "normal" ? (Or maybe the same issue arises. If my car is making an unusual noise that tends to imply there's something wrong. Again.)

    But the point is that a "mere statement of frequency" is not evidence of white supremacist belief.
    There are plenty of people who like to hide behind the statistical statement of fact whilst implying (subtly or otherwise) the other, and those people are racists.

    You may know plenty of such people, who "hide behind". I don't think I do.

    Does that lead you to pre-judge that people really mean something other than what they say ?

    "That's the sort of thing that a white supremacist would say" doesn't mean that everyone who says it is a white supremacist. I'm told they say "good morning" to their neighbours as well...

    @Tubbs said:
    There comes a time when you have to pick a side.

    The increasing polarisation of American society which now seems to be spreading to British society is about picking a side, and then demonising the Other Side and any point of view associated with them.

    Whereas the truth is always that your side is right about some things and the Other Side is right about some things (however small and insignificant those things may seem to you). And it is those things that the Other Side are right about that attract good people to the Other Side.

    You are, literally, right - there may well come a time when all of us have to choose a side.

    Until then, I'm looking for the nuanced position that acknowledges all the truths of both sides.
    Eliab wrote: »
    I'm not sure exactly what Doublethink means by "white normative" but that phrase implies far more than "most people in [LOCALITY] are [COLOUR]", and I would take it to refer (critically) to a conscious or unconscious viewpoint that "only white people are rightly and properly included in the community without having to justify their place".

    I'd understood "white normative" to mean that the cultural norms that are applied are the norms of "white culture" i.e. the culture of the white majority. And it seems to me that this is obviously going to be the case in a locality where say >95% of people are white.

    (And similarly in places where the "great majority" of people are of any other race - the effects of majority dominance are not specific to any skin colour. The Golden Rule is observed if your expectations of Japanese immigrants in Sweden are mirrored by your expectations of Swedish immigrants in Japan).

    So that for example, people of an ethnic minority will find that they are judged by the majority to be rude or polite according to the norms of politeness of the majority culture.

    And so it's about assimilation of immigrants to the majority culture. As opposed to a type of multiculturalism in which no culture's norms are dominant. (In which for example all children would be taught to recognise the norms of politeness of each of the recognised ethnic subcultures within the state).

    But Doublethink can tell me if that's not what was intended.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    I think white normative means something rather different. It means something like thinking which results, albeit unconsciously, in ordering things according to norms that work for white people, but which may in fact be oppressive to others.

    A relatively trivial example here (UK) would be school rules relating to hair styles which are simple enough for white people to observe, but which are difficult or impossible for Afro-Caribbean people to implement.
  • Okay from the dictionary, normative means "Establishing or setting up a norm, or standard which ought to be conformed to." (italics mine). There's your problem. "White normative" means "you brown people need to do what we white people do. You must conform to our norms." That's just what it MEANS.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    I realise I am pulling a bit of a Boswell 2 here, but as folk are saying what I am writing on this thread is ambiguous. This post quotes posts I have made since page 10 of this thread, that cover the main points I have been trying to make.
    Seems to me, an issue is a lack of a systematic approach to when we do and do not reverse ancient fuckups, alongside the need to try to achieve equity for all ethnic groups across a given internationally recognised state.

    The contrast between, for example, trying to give specific pieces of Scottish land to the descendants of families who were subject to the Highland Clearances - versus - the attempts of the Scottish government to engage in land reform and return more land to community ownership and reduce the number of absentee landlords.

    The treatment of native Americans during the colonisation of America and the subsequent consolidation of the US was manifestly unjust and genocidal. But it is not meaningfully reversible, likewise chattel slavery.
    @lilbuddha I don’t have a definitive answer. From an lgbt perspective we do talk about homophobia and heteronormative assumptions. From which I understand, someone who is homophobic holds what I consider to be prejudiced ideas about gay people, whereas many people operate on heteronormative assumptions that impact gay people in a discriminatory way.

    In general people are more responsive to being told that such and such a practice is based on heteronormative assumptions, than they are being told such and such is homophobfic. And I do feel there is a qualitative difference between practices that exist because your default assumption is that everyone is like you, and practices that exist because you assume people who are not like you are somehow a bit shit (be that perverse, stupid or criminal).

    After this point in the conversation myself and lilbuddha started to use “whitenormative” as the race/colour equivalent of heteronormative.
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    As regards the rest of the discussion I would say:
    • Intention matters
    • Structural inequality exists
    • Whitenormative assumptions are common, and reinforce structural inequality
    • White supremacist thought is evil
    • Ignorance and hatred are not equivalent
    • It is true that lower exposure to multiple ethnicities probably results in both more prejudice and more ignorance
    Intention matters, but it does grant complete innocence because of whitenormative assumptions. And whitenormative assumptions do more than reinforce structural inequality, they tacitly support the more direct forms of racism.

    That’s fair comment.

    I’d also amend my list thusly:
    • 1) Intention matters
    • 2) Structural inequality exists
    • 3) Whitenormative assumptions are common
    • 4) Whitenormative assumptions reinforce structural equality
    • 5) Whitenormative assumptions functionally enable more purposive forms of racism
    • 6) Colourism exists
    • 7) White supremacism exists
    • 8) White supremacist thought is evil
    • 9) Structural inequality, whitenormative assumptions, colourism and white supremicism are all forms of more or less purposive racism
    • 10) Intersectional issues magnify the impacts of these social trends
    • 11) The expression and experience of all forms of racism varies significantly depending on context, on both a small and large scale
    • 12) DNA percentage and cultural heritage are not the same thing
    • 13) Genocidal practices have impacted communities such that some individuals have been deprived of their cultural heritage.

    “More ore less purposive” in this post is intended to mean a spectrum of lesser to greater.
    Furthermore, the conjunction of 6 & 12, should not be used to minimise the experience of people impacted by 13.

    In general, anyway, trying to rank people’s experience of pain is not helpful.

    (Also - why the list - because I feel if we establish common concepts / language it would be a lot easier to talk constructively about what to do about it.)

    @Russ appears to be arguing that he doesn’t believe that points 5 & 9 are true. Specifically, that he doesn’t accept whitenormative thought is a form of racism and he doesn’t think that it is linked to, or enables, more explicit forms of racism. Also, her appears to be saying he doesn’t think point 6 is true, he doesn’t believe colourism exists.
  • As long as calls for assimilation include insisting an immigrant changes skin colour, those calls are racist.

    That seems to me what Russ is doing here.
  • TubbsTubbs Admin
    edited September 2019
    "That's the sort of thing that a white supremacist would say" doesn't mean that everyone who says it is a white supremacist. I'm told they say "good morning" to their neighbours as well...

    It doesn’t. But, once it’s been pointed out to you that this is the sort of thing a white supremacist would say then you have to decide whether or not you wish to continue saying it.
    The increasing polarisation of American society which now seems to be spreading to British society is about picking a side, and then demonising the Other Side and any point of view associated with them.

    Whereas the truth is always that your side is right about some things and the Other Side is right about some things (however small and insignificant those things may seem to you). And it is those things that the Other Side are right about that attract good people to the Other Side.

    You are, literally, right - there may well come a time when all of us have to choose a side.

    Until then, I'm looking for the nuanced position that acknowledges all the truths of both sides.

    In some cases yes, but we’re talking about racism here. Are you saying that there are things that are right and true about racism? That it’s okay to say and do racist things? That it’s something that needs defending?

    I disagree about the polarisation. The howls of anguish you’re hearing is a group that has been told all its life that a random accident of birth means it’s better than others and this comes with an automatic entitlement to the best that life has to offer plus the ability to say and do what it likes learning that this isn’t necessarily so. Being asked to give way to other groups who are different to them.

    This group is not going down without a fight. Which may help to explain the rise in far right groups and why they’re considered a bigger terror threat than other groups right now. But boys will be boys, huh?! Just being edgy ... Bless 'em

    All quotes from Russ
  • EliabEliab Shipmate, Purgatory Host
    Crœsos wrote: »
    [In a related project, an artist made a project of reworking the logo of another team with a similar name problem, the Cleveland Indians, with representations of other racial and ethnic groups.
    The aim of this project is of course to shock, but perhaps the most shocking thing is that many would look at these other logos and be more shocked. How are these logos any different from what Cleveland did for so long? The truth is they’re not. We’re rightly outraged at racist depictions of Blacks, Asians, Jews, and others, but why are we somehow alright with bigotry towards Native Americans? Looking at them all side-by-side, these should all be viewed with the same amount of scorn. One or a few of these are not worse than the others. You’re either outraged at all of them or none of them.

    While I get the point that's being made, looking at the images, I find that I don't feel the same level of outrage at all of them.

    The 'Negroes' logo strikes me a clearly racist caricature. The 'Orientals' one is a caricature, too, but the costume is unusual and specific enough that I wouldn't (without context) immediately assume that all 'Orientals' were the intended target. I'd be uneasy about the 'Indians' (from India) logo, or the 'Jews' one - they play to stereotypes of groups which I know of common targets for racism, but don't strike me as obviously mocking or hostile. The others are (to me) all very much more on the 'silly' end of the 'sinister/silly' spectrum.

    I suppose they could all be used in a racist way, but my initial impression of how inherently racist they appear to be varies greatly. The wider social context matters, and the specific way in which the images were deployed would also matter.

    I think the images are interesting, and have certainly made me think about why some of the logos have a greater impact on me that others, but they don't much help me to understand why the controversial 'Indians' logo is or is not likely to cause offence in an American context.
  • Eliab wrote: »
    I think the images are interesting, and have certainly made me think about why some of the logos have a greater impact on me that others, but they don't much help me to understand why the controversial 'Indians' logo is or is not likely to cause offence in an American context.
    That you do not understand should not be important to you, not as a primary issue. What should be the primary issue is that American Indians find it racist. Maybe words from Indians themselves will help.

    Eliab wrote: »
    While I get the point that's being made, looking at the images, I find that I don't feel the same level of outrage at all of them.
    To reiterate; your outrage is not the important outrage.
    Eliab wrote: »
    The 'Negroes' logo strikes me a clearly racist caricature. The 'Orientals' one is a caricature, too, but the costume is unusual and specific enough that I wouldn't (without context) immediately assume that all 'Orientals' were the intended target.
    The costume is one generally assigned to anyone "oriental", though I suppose the more discerning racist will see all Chinese instead of all east Asians.
    The logo is meant to represent the way a culturally diverse area is shoehorned into an insulting stereotype. Simply because an article of clothing belonged to one of the cultures doesn't remove the racism.
    Eliab wrote: »
    I'd be uneasy about the 'Indians' (from India) logo, or the 'Jews' one - they play to stereotypes of groups which I know of common targets for racism, but don't strike me as obviously mocking or hostile. The others are (to me) all very much more on the 'silly' end of the 'sinister/silly' spectrum.

    I suppose they could all be used in a racist way, but my initial impression of how inherently racist they appear to be varies greatly. The wider social context matters, and the specific way in which the images were deployed would also matter.
    There is one context being demonstrated here. The use of a stereotype to represent varied groups of people and fetishising imagined traits. The only logo that isn't racist is the WHITES logo.
  • Russ wrote: »
    There are plenty of people who like to hide behind the statistical statement of fact whilst implying (subtly or otherwise) the other, and those people are racists.

    You may know plenty of such people, who "hide behind". I don't think I do.

    Does that lead you to pre-judge that people really mean something other than what they say ?

    No - I try hard not to pre-judge anyone. But when they start talking about what is "normal" with lots of knowing sidelong glances, it's not hard to work out what they are really saying. Particularly when they are making these comments in relation to, let's say, third generation Brits of a darker hue, and don't make them in relation to a white Frenchman.

    We got a leaflet in the mail the other day talking about awareness of heart attack symptoms. One side of the leaflet was headed "Heart Attack Symptoms" and the other was headed "Heart Attack Symptoms in Women". Can you spot the problem?
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    I can indeed see the problem unless the first side was symptoms in both women and men, whereas the second was symptoms experienced by women only.
  • Eliab wrote: »
    I suppose they could all be used in a racist way, but my initial impression of how inherently racist they appear to be varies greatly. The wider social context matters, and the specific way in which the images were deployed would also matter.

    But isn't that the point? That the wider social context amongst people who aren't Native Americans is that this kind of caricature is just a bit of fun and not really racist, and that perhaps that opinion isn't shared by Native Americans? That the fact that anyone is having a discussion about whether or not "Chief Wahoo" is racist is in fact an indicator of the problem.

    If you want to know whether something is racist, you're probably best off asking the people being caricatured.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    There is one context being demonstrated here. The use of a stereotype to represent varied groups of people and fetishising imagined traits. The only logo that isn't racist is the WHITES logo.

    I think they are all to some extent racist, (the whites logo looks like the stereotypical mobster trope).

    However, I have a question. If you were to draw a cartoon or caricature of a generic person of any race, how would you do that without it being racist ? If you google image search caricature you get pictures of people of all races - but they are of specific individuals.
  • There is one context being demonstrated here. The use of a stereotype to represent varied groups of people and fetishising imagined traits. The only logo that isn't racist is the WHITES logo.

    I think they are all to some extent racist, (the whites logo looks like the stereotypical mobster trope).
    I thought it looked like a stereotypical 1950's, 1960's businessman. I don't think it is racist because the hat was part of a standard Western business attire and because "the whites" by iteslf, has none of the attributions that "the blacks" or "the orientals" does.
    However, I have a question. If you were to draw a cartoon or caricature of a generic person of any race, how would you do that without it being racist ? If you google image search caricature you get pictures of people of all races - but they are of specific individuals.
    You can't, but why should one feel the need to do so anyway? Part of the problem with the Cleveland Indian and the Washington Redskins goes beyond the logo. It goes towards the idea of minimising diverse groups of people into a caricature, especially ones treated so poorly

  • The latter was my point lilbuddha.
  • Good. However, with this issue, it pays to explore the possibilities. There are examples of posters with one post indicating an understanding only to be followed by another post indicating the understanding only going so far.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Good. However, with this issue, it pays to explore the possibilities. There are examples of posters with one post indicating an understanding only to be followed by another post indicating the understanding only going so far.

    Well isn’t that the same for everyone?
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    edited September 2019
    Please continue with the current conversation, however it is Epiphanies hosting practice to note that a previous link, labelled Asov Battalion, led to Grayzone, which is an overly biased (pro-Russia) website and not appropriate for evidence in Epiphanies though it could be used in Purgatory or Hell. Any discussion of this should be in the Styx.

    Gwai,
    Epiphanies Host
  • Tubbs wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Good. However, with this issue, it pays to explore the possibilities. There are examples of posters with one post indicating an understanding only to be followed by another post indicating the understanding only going so far.

    Well isn’t that the same for everyone?
    Well, yes. However, it is a particular problem with racism.
    If I am discussing the Evangelical Lutheran Conference & Ministerium of North America, not much is lost if understand the bulk but get a few details wrong. The same is not true of racism. The subtle misunderstandings and misconceptions are of more consequence.
  • TubbsTubbs Admin
    edited September 2019
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Tubbs wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Good. However, with this issue, it pays to explore the possibilities. There are examples of posters with one post indicating an understanding only to be followed by another post indicating the understanding only going so far.

    Well isn’t that the same for everyone?
    Well, yes. However, it is a particular problem with racism.
    If I am discussing the Evangelical Lutheran Conference & Ministerium of North America, not much is lost if understand the bulk but get a few details wrong. The same is not true of racism. The subtle misunderstandings and misconceptions are of more consequence.

    That’s the same with any ~ism. Lived experience isn’t always universal and an outside perspective only gets you so far. Which is kind of why we’re all here.
  • Tubbs wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Tubbs wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Good. However, with this issue, it pays to explore the possibilities. There are examples of posters with one post indicating an understanding only to be followed by another post indicating the understanding only going so far.

    Well isn’t that the same for everyone?
    Well, yes. However, it is a particular problem with racism.
    If I am discussing the Evangelical Lutheran Conference & Ministerium of North America, not much is lost if understand the bulk but get a few details wrong. The same is not true of racism. The subtle misunderstandings and misconceptions are of more consequence.

    That’s the same with any ~ism. Lived experience isn’t always universal and an outside perspective only gets you so far. Which is kind of why we’re all here.
    This is true. Though, with no other context it can feed those who would look to avoid looking into themselves, so I do not like to leave simple statements standing without adding context.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    there is a qualitative difference between practices that exist because your default assumption is that everyone is like you, and practices that exist because you assume people who are not like you are somehow a bit shit

    I'd agree. You're saying that whitenormative (=operating under the default assumption that other people are white) is not the same as white superiority (= thinking that being white is intrinsically better).
    As regards the rest of the discussion I would say:
    1. Intention matters
    Yes.
    2. Structural inequality exists
    I understand "structural" to mean "built into the culture", as opposed to the explicit choices made by individuals. But I'm not quite sure what you have in mind here. Could you give a few examples of what you consider to be structural inequality that relates to race ?
    3) Whitenormative assumptions are common
    I think it's a universal experience that oneself is the only person one knows from the inside, and one of the milestones of development in young children is the realisation that other people are people like oneself. And as people grow older they learn more about the ways in which people differ. And thus the young child's default assumption that others are exactly like oneself "on the inside" is replaced by a more complex set of defaults, depending on the range of different people they've known or otherwise learned about.

    So yes, assuming that others are more like oneself than they actually are is very common.

    And yes there's huge scope for default assumptions to be culturally based and thus of dubious accuracy regarding people from other cultures.

    But I had always thought that strictly racial differences are no more than skin deep. So that the default assumption that someone of another race but the same culture is like oneself tends to be more of a good thing than a bad one
    6) Colourism exists
    I understand "colourism" to refer to prejudice against darker-skinned people within one's own race. My very limited reading suggests that this does indeed occur in Indian and in Africa. Not sure about elsewhere.
    7) White supremacism exists
    Yes.
    8) White supremacist thought is evil
    White supremacism as an idea is false. The choice to pursue supremacist aims by coercion or violence is evil.

    In times past there were white people who believed in white superiority in a paternalistic noblesse oblige sort of way which might be annoying but isn't actually evil.

    Enough for tonight. To be continued.

    Except to agree with you on
    if we establish common concepts / language it would be a lot easier to talk constructively


  • Colourism occurs both within and between races/cultures.
  • @Russ -- learn what "normative" means. I already defined it once.
  • Russ wrote: »
    ....
    8) White supremacist thought is evil
    White supremacism as an idea is false. The choice to pursue supremacist aims by coercion or violence is evil.

    In times past there were white people who believed in white superiority in a paternalistic noblesse oblige sort of way which might be annoying but isn't actually evil.

    ...

    I'm not sure that the people on the receiving end of that belief would agree with you.
  • Russ is under the misapprehension that racism is something you do, rather than something that is done to you.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Russ is under the misapprehension that racism is something you do, rather than something that is done to you.

    I've always seen it as both.
  • I potentially worded it badly, but it's about the shift of focus.

    Racists don't get to define what racism is. Russ has spent pages trying to do exactly that - saying that what he's doing isn't racist and seeking justification for it. But the people he's being racist towards should get to define the terms instead.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    I potentially worded it badly, but it's about the shift of focus.

    Racists don't get to define what racism is. Russ has spent pages trying to do exactly that - saying that what he's doing isn't racist and seeking justification for it. But the people he's being racist towards should get to define the terms instead.

    Thank you for clarifying. That makes complete sense.
  • A bit like murder is defined in terms of the consequences for the victim rather than in terms of the motivation of the perpetrator. Russ' argument about racism as far as I can see would mean that it shouldn't count as murder if it's not personal.

    (IIRC when I last brought up the analogy Russ said that the cases were totally different, because, um, because they are different and it's nitpicking to suggest otherwise.)
  • I’m not sure ideas can be false. Propositions or statements made in service of, under the direction of, etc., may be false, but an idea itself can’t be false. Or, at least, I don’t know what it would mean to declare that an idea is false or true.
  • [tangent]Murder is defined by intention[/tangent]
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    [tangent]Murder is defined by intention[/tangent]
    Intention is not the same as motive. Intention is the consequence you want to bring about (killing someone if murder, something other than killing them if manslaughter), and motive is what you want from it (revenge or money, for example).
    Russ is at the moment saying we should look not at consequences but at motives.
  • My understanding is that @Russ is being a little more complex/self-serving. Not only is he claiming that racial prejudice (he doesn't believe "racism" actually exists) is determined by intent, he also claims that the only one who can know or judge that intent is the racist themselves.

    To apply this to the murder analogy, it's like saying that even if you see someone scream "die, you bastard" while unloading a handgun into them, pausing to reload, and then shooting their cooling corpse six more times while screaming obscenities at them, it would still be premature to conclude that the killing was intentional. (Related link)
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Not only is he claiming that racial prejudice (he doesn't believe "racism" actually exists) is determined by intent, he also claims that the only one who can know or judge that intent is the racist themselves.

    You're halfway there, Croesos.

    The phenomena that we're talking about when you refer to "everyday racism" are real. People are prejudiced. People care more about members of their own tribe than about non-members. Feel an ownership of their tribe's territory. Are more comfortable with people they perceive to be like themselves. etc.

    Racism is not a thing that explains these phenomena. It's not a disease of which these are the symptoms.

    Racism isn't well-defined. It's a word that people use in different senses.

    For some it's little more than an expression of political disapproval on behalf of ethnic minorities. If on balance you're in favour of something (such as a quota system) then you won't describe it as racist (whether or not it fits someone else's definition).

    For some it means a belief in racial superiority and actions motivated by such a belief.

    For some it's actions motivated by racial antagonism.

    There are many variations in usage.

    I'd put it to you that unless there is some attribute that all racist acts possess and all non-racist acts do not possess then there is no such thing as racism.

    And even if you do find a rare person who uses the word in a well-defined and consistent way, they tend to judge acts to be racist or not based on the consequences of the act. With that type of definition, racism is not a cause of anything, it's a classification of effects as being disadvantageous to ethnic minorities. Saying that something is racist in that sense is a judgment on the downstream consequences not on the upstream cause.

    Understanding the cause of an act means understanding what's going on in the mind of the person committing the act. However much your sympathy may be engaged with the feelings of the person who experiences the consequences of the act.


  • Russ wrote: »
    The phenomena that we're talking about when you refer to "everyday racism" are real. People are prejudiced. People care more about members of their own tribe than about non-members. Feel an ownership of their tribe's territory. Are more comfortable with people they perceive to be like themselves. etc.

    Racism is not a thing that explains these phenomena. It's not a disease of which these are the symptoms.

    Sure. People are more comfortable with people like them. Conservatives prefer to spend time with other conservatives. Liberals like other liberals. People with common interests flock together. People are tribal. Sure - that describes the way a lot of people behave.

    And the people that don't consider that people with a different skin tone might be members of their tribe - might be people like them - are racist.

    Who, then, is my neighbour?

  • Short version: No.

    Longer jurisprudential version: the law doesn't need to understand what's going on in the mind of a racist, they look at the consequences of the act.
  • Russ wrote: »
    ...
    I'd put it to you that unless there is some attribute that all racist acts possess and all non-racist acts do not possess then there is no such thing as racism....

    I put it to you that unless you can specify a characteristic that all dogs possess and all non-dogs do not possess then there is no such thing as a dog.

    ("They all have dog DNA" is begging the question.)

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    Dafyd wrote: »
    A bit like murder is defined in terms of the consequences for the victim rather than in terms of the motivation of the perpetrator. Russ' argument about racism as far as I can see would mean that it shouldn't count as murder if it's not personal.

    (IIRC when I last brought up the analogy Russ said that the cases were totally different, because, um, because they are different and it's nitpicking to suggest otherwise.)

    Umm...... Your first sentence has barely any semblance to the position. Of course the consequence of death is essential, but otherwise it's almost all about intention. basically, the House of Lords got it wrong in Smith v DPP, as the High Court here pointed out unanimously in Parker's Case.
  • Dead is dead, regardless of "intention".
  • This dodgy analogy debate is basically the thread disappearing down a rabbit hole.

    @Russ is asserting that structural racism and whitenormative thought don’t form part of the spectrum of racism. His justification for this seems to be, its usual to think in ingroup and outgroup terms. Because it’s usual, this makes it ok to do so with regard to race/culture.

    I think this is wrong.

    Ingroup/outgrup re your sports team, of your fandom is just not objectively harmful in the same way.
This discussion has been closed.