On the origin of "Black People Can't be Racist"

Post Reply New Topic

You need to read these two statements out loud.

Then ask yourself who wants the simple explanation.


I never said it was okay. Now, you're just trying to change the terms of the argument because you don't have a response to what I actually said.


Now you're conflating discrimination and racism. All racism IS discrimination but not all discrimination is based on race.

Also, in that quote you butchered, I was speaking specifically about black prejudice aimed at whites. You knew that because that's all we've been talking about! Yet, you deliberately took my statement out of context to make a pointless point and change the argument because, again, you cannot rebut what I actually said.

For one last time...

Discrimination against poor white Appalachians is based on class and perpetrated by people with POWER. Discrimination against the Irish was based on religion and perpetrated by people with POWER.

Those powerful people are/were not black by and large.

So, in sum, those are examples of discrimination NOT BASED ON RACE and the secret ingredient that makes them result in more than hurt feelings is POWER!

Actually, those examples help make my point, not yours. Thanks.

It seems pretty clear that you are not interested in an honest discussion.

Thanks for reminding me why I don't post here anymore.

I'm done with you. I just don't have the energy or desire to waste time on pointless exchanges like this.

Discussion here is like feeding conjoined twin dogs joined at the anus. The food goes around and around, but never does sh!t.

Last edited by GoonSquad on 16 Oct 2016, 2:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

And the more we blend the better, I think.

I think people have to be open to a new world culture that has been brought about by the present state of communication.

Words don't have single fixed definitions. Until we all accept that, then we'll keep having pointless arguments like this.

Rather than saying "no, black people CAN be racist!", why not say "what do you mean by "racist"?"

Yes, African Americans can be individually prejudiced, but white Americans can't be the victims of institutional racism in America (unless they are perceived as non-white).

Yes, black-majority countries can be institutionally racist against white people (Zimbabwe).

OR

No, there is no difference between the discrimination faced by black and white people in America or Zimbabwe, or the prejudice they experience daily.

At the moment, the "racism doesn't mean that!! !" discussion is like arguing whether a car has a trunk or a boot.

If a car has a trunk wrapped around, it's in much more serious trouble than if it has a boot on top, because an elephant shaking the car is more likely to destroy it than a human standing on it.

Now, that's logic you cannot argue with!

And how about if it's an elephant wearing the boots?

Fascinating. You completely ignore my (not at all theoretical) example of Korean racism, and then say I am oversimplifying it.
Very impressive evasive and rhetorical skills on display, 0 points for content.


I'm sorry, to me "we should not condemn people for acting on racist impulses" means condoning such conduct. Perhaps I misunderstood. If so, it was because of what you wrote, not because of evasion on my part.

The sad part of this discussion is that I am pretty sure we are essentially on the same side in the actual struggle against racism, but your need to support a certain cramped, limiting and ultimately false conceptual framework on the discussion is setting us at odds.


I have no idea what you are talking about.
The full sentence was this:

I read this as you arguing that prejudice aimed at whites usually only results in hurt feelings at most.
This opinion is refuted by a large body of undisputed historical fact.
It may be that you meant to type something else, but you seem to be accusing me of creative editing for responding to what you actually wrote.
You can check for yourself, the post is still there: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=330867&start=30#p7332685





I can understand how a need to support the dogma that racism is only about white people mistreating black people, but this is just not true.

I don't know if you believe this because it's necessary to support the dogma around the "sociological definition of racism" or if you just don't know about the complexity of racial ideas and discrimination among Europeans.

You may, for instance, be surprised to learn that the English have long spoken of the Irish a members of a different race. To say that the prejudice against the Irish by the English was entirely about class and religion flies in the face of documented history.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 4/abstract
http://www.understandingrace.org/histor ... _race.html

In the mind of a true, passionate racist like Winston Churchill, there is no question that the Irish were a distinct and lesser race, every bit as naturally inferior as Africans or Asians, though in different ways.

As Charles Kingsley wrote, revealing nasty truths about his racism against the Irish and all dark-skinned people:




The fact that I disagree with you doesn't mean I am dishonest.

LOL Yeah, okay, you got me on that one----touché!

Oh, please----research can be skewed, depending-on whomever's got the deepest pockets and what result, they want!!

Maybe in the U.K, the Irish were discriminated against because of religion----but, not HERE!!

I'm Irish----but, because I'm also Indian (Native American), someone would really have to work at figuring-out what I am, cuz I have olive skin----and, they CERTAINLY couldn't tell, by lookin' at me, what is my religion.

Again, people DON'T have power, in this sense, unless someone gives power to their WORDS----just like when you said you couldn't care less that someone called you a cracker; you took the power FROM them / their words----and, black people / their words DO have power, in this sense, that the person who IS offended by what they say, GIVES them!!

EXACTLY!!

And everyone knows that "science" is an inherently racist Eurocentric system of colonial domination that must be destroyed:

http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/14/watch ... ence-is-ra

If the peoples of the world are to be free, #SociologyMustFall !

LOLOLOL

Hey, I've got an idea..... Let's BAN Sociology----banning something is ALWAYS successful!!

First it is not just about the words, individual power is being conflated with institutional power in this concept. So the definition isn't being used consistently.

Secondly words do have accepted use, and I do think it is intentionally misleading.