Poll of the Day > People on GameFAQs understand that Critical Race Theory is ANTI-racist, right?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Unbridled9 posted...

Who says I'm white?

you do not need to be white to willfully perpetuate white supremacy. Nor to be fragile about criticism against it.

---

wydrah posted...

you do not need to be white to willfully perpetuate white supremacy. Nor to be fragile about criticism against it.

So then what defines being white?

---

Race is a social construct. So, society.

---

wydrah posted...

Race is a social construct. So, society.

So then what is true for one society does not hold true for another society. Correct?

---

Unbridled9 posted...

So then what is true for one society does not hold true for another society. Correct?

Idk where you're going with this, but societies do not exist in a vacuum, especially when we consider the ramifications of colonialism "exporting" European culture globally.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

So then what is true for one society does not hold true for another society. Correct?

Do you think "context matters" is a hot take or something

---

Clench281 posted...

Do you think "context matters" is a hot take or something

I suspect we're getting into whataboutism territory, but not sure.

---

wydrah posted...

Idk where you're going with this, but societies do not exist in a vacuum, especially when we consider the ramification of colonialism "exporting" European culture globally.

Because various societies are radically different across the world. What is true for an American society doesn't hold true for, say, China where the 'oppressed minority' would be various religious groups (muslims, christians), ethnic groups such as Tibetans, and political dissidents. What you are effectively saying is that there is one society, European, that is utterly dominate and all others are attempting to imitate it. Either that or you are taking a struggle of CLASS and applying it to RACE then applying said resulting system on a global level to ALL cultures with no regards for their society, history, culture, or anything else about them. Something EXTREMELY emblematic of a 'white savior' complex.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

Because various societies are radically different across the world. What is true for an American society doesn't hold true for, say, China where the 'oppressed minority' would be various religious groups (muslims, christians), ethnic groups such as Tibetans, and political dissidents. What you are effectively saying is that there is one society, European, that is utterly dominate and all others are attempting to imitate it. Either that or you are taking a struggle of CLASS and applying it to RACE then applying said resulting system on a global level to ALL cultures with no regards for their society, history, culture, or anything else about them. Something EXTREMELY emblematic of a 'white savior' complex.

While I agree that class struggle is ultimately the more significant struggle, I also acknowledge that white supremacy is real. The world was colonized by Europeans, so yes, European hegemony is real. And obvious?

Why can't both struggles be fought?

Also, why is the dominant culture in China at all relevant to white supremacy in the United States?

---

kivos posted...

I get sick of hearing this shit from the left. Watching the Olympics is an easy way to see America is the most diverse country by far on the face of the planet. People of different ethnicities representing America than any other country. Almost every other country is primarily dominated by one race representing it. You have more chances of success and being put on a platform in America than you do anywhere else and in any other country. Drop this victimization bullshit. It's funny to see you people act like the right has boogiemen but all this thread is is showing insecurity to a boogie man yourself so you have a reason to show your "victimization".

The Olympics have historically been a place for America to show off how great a society it is by having people of color participate for the country. But the Olympics themselves are not what matters. Its what happens to the participants after that proves how welcomed they are in society.
I will refer you to Louis Tewamina and Jessie Owens as examples. They were touted and celebrated (with sideways racists commentary) and abandoned soon after.
How you treat someone, after youve used them, is more telling of how you fell about them than how you treat them when theyre making you look good.

---

wydrah posted...

While I agree that class struggle is ultimately the more significant struggle, I also acknowledge that white supremacy is real. The world was colonized by Europeans, so yes, European hegemony is real. And obvious?

Why can't both struggles be fought?

Also, why is the dominant culture in China at all relevant to white supremacism in the United States?

Because that's not true.

Firstly you are taking a viewpoint that can ONLY exist in a vacuum. For example, Japan was never colonized by Europe and, instead, became it's own colonial power dominating much of China and the Pacific Ocean (amazingly brutally I might add) yet no acknowledgement is made about such things.

Secondly, it completely ignores basically any form of history. Since, otherwise, it would also need to acknowledge that Europe was, effectively, colonized by the Muslims (Spain), Mongols, and Ottomans at various points among others. Or that not every European power was a colonial one (Poland). Or that Europeans HAD a united identity that was even slightly racially aligned especially along modern, AMERICAN, axis.

Thirdly, it's a gross misrepresentation of reality as it's presenting a class struggle as a racial one. That's simply not what's happening and, assuming the absolute best, is something that ONLY applies to one nation in one specific viewpoint.

Fourthly, it is horrifically offensive to ethnic groups who have also suffered at the hands of the very things you say white people are doing, yet were of the wrong skin color, and you are now saying they are the same as their oppressors BECAUSE of their skin color. Go up to an Irish man and say he's racially, morally, religiously, and so-forth identical to an Englishman and therefore not only never been oppressed but is an oppressor. See how well that goes.

And FINALLY, this whole thing, it's a complete, total, monstrous, slap in the face to any person of European descent who ISN'T racist! People who have formed close bonds and friendships with PoC's, possibly due to things such as mutual suffering, poverty, persecution, and so-forth, are being told, by a woman who admits to being uncomfortable around black people no less, that they're JUST as bad as she is and need to admit it and get over it. I can't think of anything that would make me more enraged than being told that I am in the same group of racists that she is, despite living my life surrounded by african americans, native americans, hispanics, asians, and so-forth, living a lifestyle of the poor, with family who were expunged BY the nazi's AND the communists AND were displaced by the English.

That book isn't worth the fire needed to burn it. That woman isn't worth the air she breaths. She's nothing more than a racist spewing racist ideas being co-opted by marxists who feast on strife for their own power. If you honestly think the solution to a problem like discrimination is MORE discrimination then might I suggest replacing water with gasoline in fire hoses or that the solution to fascists is more fascism, just against fascists?

History isn't some neat little package like whatever your college professor told you it was. The Irish were treated like garbage in America despite 'being white' and the same happened to groups like the Polish and Italians. Heck, Columbus Day, the day so many people rally against now, came about because Italians were being killed and they wanted to try and make some unified connection between them and the rest of America. Not because he enslaved people or whatever dumb reason the haters think; but because they wanted to promote UNITY between Americans and Italians.

So, instead of talking about this racist woman, you instead try to champion someone like Crispus Attucks? Or elevate a figure like John Henry to the same level as Johnny Appleseed or Davey Crockett? The multitudes of blacks who fought for the Union, or in WWI or WWII in spite of racism? Or in modern times, Daryl Davis who got multiple KKK members to leave and change their ways by befriending them?

Because otherwise you're stuck promoting a terrible ideology made by a racist woman and effectively flipping the damned middle finger at me every time I see a nazi/soviet bullet hole in my family tree.

---

^ why does Japanese empiricism matter on a discussion about racism in America? America was colonized by Europeans. No one is saying that a single social framework (like CRT) is a fits-all-situations lens for how society works.

---

MrMelodramatic posted...

^ why does Japanese empiricism matter on a discussion about racism in America? America was colonized by Europeans. No one is saying that a single social framework (like CRT) is a fits-all-situations lens for how society works.

Because a viewpoint like CRT can't function if it acknowledges that Europeans aren't the only colonial power in the world and similar, identical, and even worse colonial powers have existed; including among the very same groups that they are claiming are oppressed.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

History isn't some neat little package

https://youtu.be/xuCn8ux2gbs

---

Anyways. I've said my piece. I can never, and will never, agree with a viewpoint that so terribly misrepresents history, reality, and slaps both my personal history and relationships and my family's history and relationships in the face. I'm going to go calm down and enjoy some peaceful game for a while.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

Anyways. I've said my piece. I can never, and will never, agree with a viewpoint that so terribly misrepresents history, reality, and slaps both my personal history and relationships and my family's history and relationships in the face. I'm going to go calm down and enjoy some peaceful game for a while.

It sounds like you're mad as a product of being mistaken what CRT even is

---

Unbridled9 posted...

Because a viewpoint like CRT can't function if it acknowledges that Europeans aren't the only colonial power in the world and similar, identical, and even worse colonial powers have existed; including among the very same groups that they are claiming are oppressed.

... but it's literally designed to specifically examine American law and history, because America's relationship to the trans-atlantic slave trade and its race relations are unique (same goes for a lot of countries, but the point is that a more generic framework would not give the same insight).

It's always so telling when people who have no idea what CRT is start whining about it. It's literally related to the work of American heroes like Frederick Douglass, but people keep acting as though it's some sort of communist revisionist plot. It's not.

---

All I know is Abraham Lincoln did NOT like black people - he simply used them to disrupt the souths economy and ability to wage war. He could have cared less about them and anyone who says otherwise obviously cant comprehend history WHEN IT WAS THE PRESENT.

And the american revolution was most CERTAINLY NOT about slavery - least of their concern at that time - LOGIC. People need to realize 1776 and 2021 are two entirely different times, perspectives, motives, etc.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

Because a viewpoint like CRT can't function if it acknowledges that Europeans aren't the only colonial power in the world and similar, identical, and even worse colonial powers have existed; including among the very same groups that they are claiming are oppressed.

What? Why? Several frameworks can and do exist concurrently. Also, again, were talking about the US. CRT is a way of looking at events in America, which was colonized mainly by Europeans

---

Firstly you are taking a viewpoint that can ONLY exist in a vacuum. For example, Japan was never colonized by Europe and, instead, became it's own colonial power dominating much of China and the Pacific Ocean (amazingly brutally I might add) yet no acknowledgement is made about such things.

Okay, let's back up. How are we defining "colonialism"? We probably have different definitions.

Colonialism is not simply violent oppression and slavery. It's also the Westernization of non-European (descended) societies. I said colonialism "exports" European culture. More modernly, American culture is exported. Our corporate brands--Disney, Coca-Cola, McDonalds--are not only recognized worldwide, but adopted, imitated, etc. And when the world is consuming our media, for example, they are consuming our culture, and will inevitably reshape some of their own culture according to it.

This is different than, say, the Pokemon craze in the United States. Although we are consuming Japanese culture, this is not colonial due to the power imbalance. And there is a long history of this. We can look back to the 1850s when Matthew Perry demanded Japan end its isolationist policy of sakoku by trading with the United States. His forces totally outmatched Japanese forces, not unlike how Cortes' forces dwarfed the Aztecs. Another example, obviously, would be the Potsdam Declaration, which was a formal Westernization of Japan.

I'm not reading the rest of what you wrote because it's not worth my time to break down every single thing that's wrong with it. I feel like I already put in a lot of effort into this bullshit.

---

Gaawa_chan posted...

... but it's literally designed to specifically examine American law and history, because America's relationship to the trans-atlantic slave trade and its race relations are unique (same goes for a lot of countries, but the point is that a more generic framework would not give the same insight).

It's always so telling when people who have no idea what CRT is start whining about it. It's literally related to the work of American heroes like Frederick Douglass, but people keep acting as though it's some sort of communist revisionist plot. It's not.

Yeah, CRT is this. People need to read the actual theory before they get all butthurt about it. They look like ignorant morons and are too stupid to even realize it.

---

wydrah posted...

While I agree that class struggle is ultimately the more significant struggle

Yep, this is really a pretty foundational part of leftism. Racism is a mechanism of keeping the working classes from unifying. It's funny seeing someone trying to gotcha an ideology with the exact point they've been trying to make the whole time (though not much in this topic specifically)

I thought the topic was gonna be about cars.... Woops lol.

---

something about how a banker in the loans department isn't racist for denying a black family a loan outright, but the decision to deny that loan being based on municipal red lining which WAS racist... or something

---

wydrah posted...

Okay, let's back up. How are we defining "colonialism"? We probably have different definitions.

Colonialism is not simply violent oppression and slavery. It's also the Westernization of non-European (descended) societies. I said colonialism "exports" European culture. More modernly, American culture is exported. Our corporate brands--Disney, Coca-Cola, McDonalds--are not only recognized worldwide, but adopted, imitated, etc. And when the world is consuming our media, for example, they are consuming our culture, and will inevitably reshape some of their own culture according to it.

This is different than, say, the Pokemon craze in the United States. Although we are consuming Japanese culture, this is not colonial due to the power imbalance. And there is a long history of this. We can look back to the 1850s when Matthew Perry demanded Japan end its isolationist policy of sakoku by trading with the United States. His forces totally outmatched Japanese forces, not unlike how Cortes' forces dwarfed the Aztecs. Another example, obviously, would be the Potsdam Declaration, which was a formal Westernization of Japan.

I'm not reading the rest of what you wrote because it's not worth my time to break down every single thing that's wrong with it. I feel like I already put in a lot of effort into this bullshit.

That is an unacceptable definition.

Firstly, it ensures that a colonial power can ONLY be European. This is why I listed multiple empires which engaged in similar practices that were not European (and some of which even tried to colonize Europe). If a nation did literally everything you described but existed in South America instead of Europe by your definition it couldn't be a colonial power or be engaging in colonialism. A nation that doesn't attempt to westernize couldn't be considered a colonial power. What England has done to Ireland in the past couldn't be considered 'colonial' because Ireland is a westernized nation already. Heck, in theory on an alien planet a nation could do literally everything you're describing and still fail to meet the criteria because the dominate powers are on the South in their world. This definition is a purely political one that is sorely lacking outside of pushing a narrative.

Secondly it, extremely wrongly, conflates cultural EXPORT with cultural SURPRESSION. If a company like Coke makes a desirable product and exports it, possibly even destroying local brands, that's the result of a free market at work and not some white ethnostate oppressing poor locals (especially since this can happen between westernized nations).

Thirdly this definition ignores that other cultures are capable of exporting said culture as well. We're currently seeing manga and anime, distinctly Japanese products, outright crush 'western' alternatives in America. Middle Eastern, Chinese, and Indian food markets have found firm niches. Yet you would say that this is not the same simply due to 'a power imbalance' ignoring that this is simply not how international trade works and, even if it somehow was, that local markets are not required to buy their product over local alternatives. Coke can undercut a local soda brand. Coke cannot force you to drink it's product. Even when it undercuts it manages this through having both a desirable product and a large enough revenue base to absorb such an impact and not, as CRT would imply, through some form of racial advantage afforded to it for being a 'westernized company'.

Colonies exist for one purpose and one purpose alone. To extract wealth, resources, and the like for the home country. As such the very notion of colonization would need to reflect that. However every nation has treated their colonies extremely differently. For example the Spanish effectively stripmined their nations warping the land and people groups for the purposes of the crown while, in comparison, the French were loathe to leave their homeland and saw colonies almost as more glorified trading ports. However the best, most accurate, and acceptable definition is that 'colonization' is the method by which a colonial power exerts its control over the indigenous people of an area; often displacing them and replacing local governments with ones representative of the power.

This was things such as the Chinese colonization of Tibet, what the Soviets did to Eastern Europe, what the Japanese did, and what many historical powers did where they moved into a land in which they were not native, oppressed the local people groups, forced them into submission, and frequently destroyed any local culture cannot escape your terms simply because we're talking about, say, ancient Persia and Israel (which would not qualify under your definition because they are not European) or the Roman conquests of basically everyone (since there was no 'westernization' to speak of at the time).

Gaawa_chan posted...

... but it's literally designed to specifically examine American law and history, because America's relationship to the trans-atlantic slave trade and its race relations are unique (same goes for a lot of countries, but the point is that a more generic framework would not give the same insight).

It's always so telling when people who have no idea what CRT is start whining about it. It's literally related to the work of American heroes like Frederick Douglass, but people keep acting as though it's some sort of communist revisionist plot. It's not.

And let me guess 'real communism hasn't been tried' as well?

No one is disputing that America's history with racial relations has been... strained... at best. I mean the civil rights act only happened in the 1960's, we had a civil war over it, and the south basically rebelled against England because they were afraid that increasing English influence would result in their slaves being freed. However the solution to that isn't to cram all white people (some of which have some VERY strongly negative feelings about each other due to their histories) into a single homogenous group, proclaim they have all the power when many of them have ancestors who came to America specifically because they had NO power, claim they all engage in a racist system, and then redefine words and change history to non-sense meanings whenever someone points out that they don't make sense.

I mean, you guys haven't even defined what 'white' even IS yet. Just said that society defines that.

---

Colonialism is not limited to only European. I was merely talking within the context of European hegemony.

---

I'm also continuing my practice of not reading past the first thing I decide to comment on in your posts.

---

wydrah posted...

Colonialism is not limited to only European. I was merely talking within the context of European hegemony.

Colonialism is not simply violent oppression and slavery. It's also the Westernization of non-European (descended) societies.

Pick a definition and stick with it. Either colonialism is European-exclusive or it isn't.

---

also does not mean exclusively. if you want an exhaustive definition, go read a fuckin book

---

Pwnd

---

wydrah posted...

also does not mean exclusively. if you want an exhaustive definition, go read a fuckin book

How ironic. Telling me to go read a book when you get caught up changing definitions. Here is your definition, in full, that you provided.

Colonialism is not simply violent oppression and slavery. It's also the Westernization of non-European (descended) societies. I said colonialism "exports" European culture. More modernly, American culture is exported. Our corporate brands--Disney, Coca-Cola, McDonalds--are not only recognized worldwide, but adopted, imitated, etc. And when the world is consuming our media, for example, they are consuming our culture, and will inevitably reshape some of their own culture according to it.

You also made sure to specify that:

This is different than, say, the Pokemon craze in the United States. Although we are consuming Japanese culture, this is not colonial due to the power imbalance. And there is a long history of this. We can look back to the 1850s when Matthew Perry demanded Japan end its isolationist policy of sakoku by trading with the United States. His forces totally outmatched Japanese forces, not unlike how Cortes' forces dwarfed the Aztecs. Another example, obviously, would be the Potsdam Declaration, which was a formal Westernization of Japan.

In your own definition, that you provided, you made it clear that it:

1) Exports European Culture

2) Involves westernization of non-europeans

3) Could happen when a culture isn't colonized but simply through colonial export.

However you then turned around and said that it didn't apply when there was a power imbalance. You also cited how America opened up Japan in the 1850's for trade as proof of this imbalance and ignored entirely how Japan had changed and grown as a country to the point where, in the 1940's, it was its own colonial empire that went toe-to-toe with America but I shouldn't be surprised that you're cherry-picking at this point.

Because you can't remain consistent. If colonialization, like in your earlier statement, isn't exclusively European then the whole notion of westernization, export of European culture, and that it can happen through the export of western products falls apart. However if it is an exclusively European thing that requires those things then you are willfully ignoring things like the Mongols, Ottomans, China, Soviets and the like who engaged in practices that would, by any sane and consistent definition, be considered colonialism.

So come on. Give me a straight, consistent, definition. What is colonialism? What is 'white'?

---

Unbridled9 posted...

So come on. Give me a straight, consistent, definition. What is colonialism? What is 'white'?

Colonialism is the act of a nation controlling a vassal nation or state, either through military or economic force (or any force, really) to exploit their natural and/or material exports.

For example, the interference with democracy in central america to install pro-american dictators in nations with fertile growing land to export bananas.

...

As for white, it depends on the context - however, in the context of CRT which addresses SPECIFICALLY American issues, white just means the naturalized majority.

If you apply the principals of CRT to other nations then 'white' becomes a misnomer

---

Lokarin posted...

Colonialism is the act of a nation controlling a vassal nation or state, either through military or economic force (or any force, really) to exploit their natural and/or material exports.

For example, the interference with democracy in central america to install pro-american dictators in nations with fertile growing land to export bananas.

...

As for white, it depends on the context - however, in the context of CRT which addresses SPECIFICALLY American issues, white just means the naturalized majority.

If you apply the principals of CRT to other nations then 'white' becomes a misnomer

Then it has nothing to do inherently with westernization, western values, exportation of culture, and isn't confined to Europe in the slightest as what China is doing to the Uyghur muslims and Tibet certainly qualifies as well as what the Soviets did to Eastern Europe.

Also, if the definition changes based on what nation we are observing, it is not a good definition. If I can define 'white' as 'africans' by choosing, say, Zimbabwe or some other African nation as well as Han Chinese in China or basically any other group in the majority in any nation, I would say it's simply invalid as a definition.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

Then it has nothing to do inherently with westernization, western values, exportation of culture, and isn't confined to Europe in the slightest as what China is doing to the Uyghur muslims and Tibet certainly qualifies as well as what the Soviets did to Eastern Europe.

Also, if the definition changes based on what nation we are observing, it is not a good definition. If I can define 'white' as 'africans' by choosing, say, Zimbabwe or some other African nation as well as Han Chinese in China or basically any other group in the majority in any nation, I would say it's simply invalid as a definition.

Mainly because an analysis of American culture doesn't tend to have practical application to ancient China.

---

I do not think you know what cultural hegemony is.

Yes, non-European countries have been colonizers as well. But European colonialism is far more prevalent and damaging on a global scale. So of course that's my focus, particularly on a topic about racism in America, which also happens to be the strongest empire the world has ever known.

You want to discuss exceptions as if they are the rule.

---

Bunch of weird strawmen and deflections going on..

---

Lokarin posted...

Mainly because an analysis of American culture doesn't tend to have practical application to ancient China.

This is modern day, right now, China I'm discussing. And it does because it means you've effectively made up a definition to further a point that doesn't make sense.

wydrah posted...

I do not think you know what cultural hegemony is.

Yes, non-European countries have been colonizers as well. But European colonialism is far more prevalent and damaging on a global scale. So of course that's my focus, particularly on a topic about racism in America, which also happens to be the strongest empire the world has ever known.

You want to discuss exceptions as if they are the rule.

I do know what it is. I also know you don't have an argument because you can't give viable definitions that don't invalidate your arguments. You've changed what defines colonialism three times minimum in this topic alone to suit your choice of a narrative and, frankly, only the one Lokarin gave holds any water. You're throwing around terms like 'damaging' without defining what that actually means, talking about how it's damaging on a global scale yet saying you're definitions only apply on a national scale, and discussing exceptions as if they are exceptions instead of simply part of a rule that's larger than your tiny definition allows for. Your own hyper-focusing on one specific set of colonial powers (and, let's be honest, you haven't really talked about the French, Spanish, Portuguese, or even the English outside of specifically American colonial issues.) means we have no choice BUT to speak about exceptions to a rule because you'll only talk about one example!

All for what? So you can say an Irish man who fled to America during the potato famines is part of a cultural hegemony that groups him in the same group as the English he fled from? That a family who lost members to the Nazi's are the same as them because they're part of a cultural hegemon? That the solution to past discrimination is present discrimination and the solution to present discrimination is future discrimination like a racist Ouroboros?

You're clinging to an ideology that only exists in a vacuum, can only define itself through struggle and oppression, ignores reality, and does nothing but spread strife and misery. You can't even account for what happens in other countries without having to rework how your entire vocabulary works simply because it ONLY works in an extremely specific time, place, and viewpoint! By the logic presented I could claim almost any group is a member of the oppressed and the oppressor because, shockingly, history isn't some neat little box in which one group of people are universal monsters simply because they fit into a cultural hegemon.

There's tons of people in America who aren't racist yet would fit in your definition of 'white'. People who work hard to help their friends and family, who love, care, and help people in need of help. You are saying that this is all irrelevant and that they are oppressors. What of yourself? Do YOU fit the classification of 'white'?

---

wow you are so fuckin mad lmao

it's impossible to even talk with you because you seem to be taking everything so personally

and you are never satisfied with any response anyone gives you about anything

and i'm only posting this so you will write another book i'm gonna ignore lmfao

---

Unbridled9 posted...

This is modern day, right now, China I'm discussing. And it does because it means you've effectively made up a definition to further a point that doesn't make sense.

possibly, I'm jumping in late in the conversation.

CRT was researched, like, in the 70s

As it applies to modern China... i don't know what you are talking about, it seems like a category error

---

I don't know anything about this dude from memory, but apparently at some point I gave him a tag which, after reading his posts here, still stands.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

That is an unacceptable definition.

I agree. It's ridiculous to frame colonialism as if only European nations have committed it. Historically European nations have done it the most, sure, but China is a colonizing imperial power as well.

And let me guess 'real communism hasn't been tried' as well?

... What the fuck does that have to do with anything I said?

No one is disputing that America's history with racial relations has been... strained... at best.

That also has nothing to do with what I said. A unique situation requires unique analysis to get the most out of said analysis. In terms of racial history, you're going to miss out on things if you use a one size fits all framework; Brazil's racial history is very different from the USA's, which is very different from China's, which is very different from New Zealand's, etc, etc...

Did you say this just because you have no rebuttal to the fact that everyone accepts the writings of Frederick Douglass, but you're fearmongering about the framework of analysis based off of his work and the work of those like him?

I mean the civil rights act only happened in the 1960's, we had a civil war over it, and the south basically rebelled against England because they were afraid that increasing English influence would result in their slaves being freed.

You're just making my point for me.

However the solution to that isn't to cram all white people (some of which have some VERY strongly negative feelings about each other due to their histories) into a single homogenous group, proclaim they have all the power when many of them have ancestors who came to America specifically because they had NO power, claim they all engage in a racist system, and then redefine words and change history to non-sense meanings whenever someone points out that they don't make sense.

There is an exception to outlawing slavery still enshrined in the Constitution, but you don't believe in systemic racism. Okay.

I mean, you guys haven't even defined what 'white' even IS yet. Just said that society defines that.

Because we would have to give you like five or six different ones in succession. It's easier to explain the history of whiteness than a definition, because, it being a social construct, the definition has shifted repeatedly over the course of history. Originally "white" simply referred to the English. Now it includes Germans (er...), Greeks, Slavs, Italians, the Irish (some people include Egyptians in it but that's rare), etc, etc... but no one wants to type out thousands of words worth of information about the history of whiteness when you could just get up off your ass and google it yourself, since you probably wouldn't even read it anyway.

Look, an easier example. What originally defined a woman vs a man? We usually use superficial sex characteristics to do that, but these are nebulous- even going by those categories, there is a lot of overlap between both sexes among cis people. Once we learned about chromosomes, we changed the definition of the sexes, but it was insufficient because it didn't take into account that all of these traits wind up on a bimodal chart rather than a binary one. And this method of categorization boils down to a lazy shorthand for what our society finds useful to group up- sex as a category, even though it's based upon factual attributes, is a social construct.

To people who know anything about the history of taxonomy, this shifting of categories is nothing new. Linnaean Taxonomy (you know "Mammals produce milk, give birth to live young, etc") is a highly flawed form of categorization, because you keep running into evolutionary exceptions (like the platypus) that don't fit into the category but are, undeniably, mammals. This is why we use Phylogenetic Taxonomy now, and that works far better... now imagine you have a bunch of people screaming about how Phylogenetic Taxonomy is a communist plot that is changing the meaning of the word "mammal." That is what you sound like to us. :-/

I'd say more in a less lazy and more polite way but I have to go to work so just... yeah that's all I have to go crap.

---

Gaawa_chan posted...

now imagine you have a bunch of people screaming about how Phylogenetic Taxonomy is a communist plot that is changing the meaning of the word "mammal." That is what you sound like to us. :-/

On point.

Too dumb to realize he's dumb.

---

wydrah posted...

consider the ramifications of colonialism "exporting" European culture globally.

Despite what happened centuries ago I think each country has developed on it's own since then and doesn't resemble European culture as it existed then or as it exists today. Making those ramifications a moot point.

But since we're on the subject what about a modern day example? How do you feel about the US's relationship with Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and Guam? Should the US cut ties with those regions and let them develop independently?

ShinVegaI posted...

All I know is Abraham Lincoln did NOT like black people - he simply used them to disrupt the souths economy and ability to wage war.

Yet he is credited with ending slavery in the US. Despite his feelings on the matter he did good. Calling back to my early point on thought vs action.

wydrah posted...

I'm also continuing my practice of not reading past the first thing I decide to comment on in your posts.

So it's not just me. Maybe you have a short attention span.

Gaawa_chan posted...

There is an exception to outlawing slavery still enshrined in the Constitution

"except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted"
Community service is a bs sentence. I agree the US should do away with that.

Gaawa_chan posted...

What originally defined a woman vs a man? We usually use superficial sex characteristics to do that, but these are nebulous

Originally, it was determined by where a person's reproductive organs were located. There's nothing superficial or nebulous about that. It was purely utilitarian in regard to the method for passing on of genes. The modern day definition is far more nebulous.

Gaawa_chan posted...

now imagine you have a bunch of people screaming about how Phylogenetic Taxonomy is a communist plot that is changing the meaning of the word "mammal." That is what you sound like to us. :-/

This is a fair point on perspective and I think it relates to something that was said earlier.
"It's like you're debating Christian theology without having read the Bible simply because you're against religion."
I can say the crusades were bad without thinking it was an accurate reflection of the message in the Bible.
I can criticize certain practices within Islam without condemning the Quran.
I can perceive anti-racism as a detrimental social movement without dismissing Critical Race Theory as baseless.
I think we need to have the ability to differentiate between an ideology and the people who profess to follow it.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Despite what happened centuries ago I think each country has developed on it's own since then and doesn't resemble European culture as it existed then or as it exists today. Making those ramifications a moot point.

Indigenous peoples around the world, including Native Americans in the US, are certainly still feeling the consequences of colonialism. Their ancestral lands are occupied and no longer theirs to control. Their peoples have often be pushed to the geographic margins. Standing Rock?

But since we're on the subject what about a modern day example? How do you feel about the US's relationship with Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and Guam? Should the US cut ties with those regions and let them develop independently?

The deserve self-determination. But do they want to be independent? In 2012, less than 6% of Puerto Ricans supported independence, while over 60% wanted statehood. If they wanted to be independent, I would support it. If they wanted to remain a territory, I would support that as well. It should be their choice (except statehood--that cannot be just their decision alone).

---

wydrah posted...

Standing Rock?

That's the pipeline that went through land which was set aside. From what I understand Native Americans have the same citizenship and rights that are granted to anyone born within the US. And the US government would absolutely do the same to anyone living in the path of something they want to build regardless of ancestry. Native Americans are treated no worse than any other citizen of the US which is a rather low bar to start with.

I do not attribute this to European culture. You don't have to go back to the 1500s to find causes for modern events. The original concept for US government is that people would hold their representatives responsible. Yet they re-elect politicians who do things that they don't agree with. Further the Native Americans were not fully integrated into the rest of society. They are still spoken of as a separate group even though 500 years should have been enough time to develop a shared culture.

---

hahaha i knew throwing those two words in there would trigger one of you morons to focus on that rather than the larger point

just reinforcing that you have no interest in honest conversation

---

that said, i obviously disagree with you for reasons you would dismiss, so let's skip to that part. next essay pls

---

wydrah posted...

hahaha i knew throwing those two words in there would trigger one of you morons to focus on that rather than the larger point

Well I certainly fell for it, but what I fell for I don't know. You gave an example to demonstrate what you were saying and I evaluated how well that example supports the point you made. That's a normal part of discussion as I see it.

wydrah posted...

i obviously disagree with you for reasons you would dismiss, so let's skip to that part. next essay pls

Oh, I'm unprepared. Normally I keep someone talking until they tell me how to undermine their position. Since I'm picking let's treat the US is a continuing "work in progress". What factors would you say are a hindrance that progress?

---

You want me to give a list of all the fucked up shit that is wrong with our country? Can you give me some guidance for what you're looking for? I think you are fishing for something. Otherwise, I have no idea why you're asking this particular question in this thread.

---

wydrah posted...

On point.

Too dumb to realize he's dumb.

That's not quite fair; I understand that people get confused if this isn't something they've been educated on, but the problem is that:

1. They claim to want answers about the nature of such things, but refuse to actually engage with it to learn; they could easily look all of this up on their own and save everyone time (and find themselves far better worded explanations than anything they could get on freaking video game boards) but instead of learning about the topic at hand, they get all their information off of people who misrepresent stuff for ideological reasons. They don't have to do that. They could go straight to the source to learn what CRT is instead of going off of social media posts and partisan corporate media sensationalism, but they don't. It suggests that they don't actually want to learn what something is; they just want to learn the talking points to reject it out of hand. Why? Well...
2. They are weirdly emotionally attached to outdated methods of categorization. Maybe it's my autism but I just don't understand it at all.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Originally, it was determined by where a person's reproductive organs were located. There's nothing superficial or nebulous about that. It was purely utilitarian in regard to the method for passing on of genes. The modern day definition is far more nebulous.

... No, we never decide whether the person we just met is a man or a woman based on their genitals, because people don't walk around naked all the time... unless you live in a nudist colony, I guess. You've never had anyone pull down their pants to help you determine their sex, nor demanded a chromosome test. If you're referring to doctors estimating a child's sex based upon their outer characteristics, you should have said THAT, but even then it's inaccurate due to sex characteristics that only arise during puberty and the existence of intersex people.

What you and others throughout human history have done is taken a bunch of characteristics, plotted them on two points*, and then when you observe a person, you tally up those observed sex characteristics and make a subjective estimation of a person's sex based upon the sum total of those characteristics. Most people don't know their chromosomes. And you have never seen the genitals of 99% of the people you interact with, but I am willing to bet that you think you know their sexes. You don't.
Edit: * This is me being inaccurate for the sake of brevity. Many cultures have recognized the existence of people who do not fit into one of the two extremes, and this applies both to sex and gender (though we're just talking about sex atm). It's just that the modern dominant cultures have historically not done so.

A thought experiment to illustrate my point: A person walks up to you. This person has quite a bit of body hair, wide shoulders, but also appears to have breasts and small hands. What is this person's sex? Is this person a cis male with delicate hands who has lost a lot of weight rapidly? Is this person a cis woman with a hormonal disorder? Is this an intersex person? Is this a trans woman or a trans man?

You don't know, because this person could easily fit into any of these categories based upon your metrics. ALL of these categories can possess ALL of these traits. So what's going on? Answer: your categorization system is flawed. These metrics exist, but are completely arbitrary; it is true that they do gravitate towards general extreme trends, but a 2 point system (binary) is clearly insufficient. It's excluding all exceptions save for the most extreme examples. it is therefore far more accurate to instead use a bimodal scale. With a bimodal system, medical treatment of patients becomes more accurate and scientific studies benefit more, and culturally, people who do not plot into the stereotypical extremes are not treated like absolute shit.

Just look at how people bend over backwards to justify how intersex people don't even need to be categorized because they're... what? Defects? They exist but the system people want us to keep using doesn't account for them at all! And people make excuses for a system that is obviously inferior and is NOT working as well as the alternative, but they don't have to! This is like making excuses for the failures of Linaean taxonomy for classifying mammals! Why are you bothering to emotionally defend a less accurate category method? Because you're comfortable with it? The bimodal system accounts for intersex people completely; it's literally more accurate AND more useful, both to scientists and medical practitioners, but people won't accept it because it offends them for some reason, it's ridiculous. These categories only exist for us to get utility out of them, and the bimodal system offers more accuracy and utility, ergo, if we're going to make categories based upon sex characteristics at all, the bimodal system is unambiguously superior to the binary system.

Much like the traits we use to describe mammals in Linaean Taxonomy do exist; they are factual traits, but the CATEGORY is arbitrary and flawed. It outright excludes examples of animals that should by all rights be categorized as mammals, but do not possess the arbitrary cluster of traits required to fit into that category. It's not that these traits don't exist; it's that the methodology of categorization is in and of itself both flawed and a statement in and of itself about what you prioritize and value. Outdated methods of categorization should be discarded when we have better ones; it really is that simple.

Perhaps I am not phrasing this well... *sigh* uh, watch this then. I looked it up while at work. Basically what I'm saying, but better phrased. She uses a hypothetical using heights:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koud7hgGyQ8

Oddly, I think the issue of social constructs was easy for me to get a grasp on and accept in great part because I already knew about the mess of categorization that was Linaean taxonomy years and years ago. The platypus thing is a great example of why Linaean taxonomy is just... not a good social construct for categorizing organisms; it's just too inaccurate. And there was pushback on changing that system as well, btw. If you're even just mildly into the history of taxonomy, seeing old examples of people rigorously trying to defense Linnaeus' work is, um... pretty pathetic, tbh.

---