Let's talk about Racism

[moonyham]

Now here is an inverse example:

The white people in Italy are part of Italian culture, particularly (let's say) Milanese culture, and all the subcultures that follow. The white people in Finland are part of Finnish culture and all the subcultures that follow. The white people in Greece...etc.

Let's say I'm a white guy from Spain, and I claim that all of the above, like me, are superior to everyone else simply because they are white.

This would definitely make me a racist, merely because I glorified a large group of unrelated people simply because they share my skin colour.

If, however, I say that Spaniards are superior to all others, I am not being a racist. I may be nationalist, ethnocentric or what-have-you, but not a racist.

Your basing this all off the idea that all humans are absolutely equal in all aspects(including mentally) and what you say is all very true if that were the case. However, i believe that each race has different mental capacities and abilities. Its no mistake that asians are the best at fast reaction sport like table tennis or first person shooter games as an example. People will agree that different races are certainly different physically, blacks can sprint faster as an example(all the best sprinters are black, are they not).

Just like men and woman(both homo sapiens yes) have different mental capacities(like supposudly woman are better at multitasking) then why is it so hard for people to accept or even dwell on, that different races have different mental capacities and traits.

 

[burni]

if i may add another 2 cents^^
i think the diversity amongst humans is nothing we schould use to undermine the other or letting your people stand in a better light, it's what makes us human and interesting for another.

hell there's nothing better than getting to know other cultures/countries/people.
so i beg you get rid of the term "race" when it comes to humans i always shake when hearing this because that shit drove my people to the extermination of several million people only because they followed a different belief or opinion, needless to say that they were not black at all.

 

[swilow]

http://yun.complife.ru/100facts.htm

Whites > Blacks

Epic of epicest fails there. There is no such thing as the "white race". You lose.

 

[juniortha3rd]

Now, if I come and tell you that I have a problem with Ethiopians specifically, my problem is not that they are black. My problem is that they are part of a society that produces Ethiopian culture, with which I have a problem, and that is why I have a problem with them.

As such, I do not think it is proper to call me a racist.

(Note that I have no problem with Ethiopia, this is just an example).

That makes perfect sense. But the politically correct blowhards that run things here in the US (and Canada as well) can't see the distinction between culture and race. They just don't get it.

In some African countries with high rates of HIV, the men believe that raping a virgin will cure them of the disease. Which is, obviously, a primitive and stupid way of thinking. But if any of my coworkers heard me say "Wow, those guys raping virgins are fucking retarded." That makes me a racist. I'm mocking the culture in Ghana, or Gambia, or whatever hellhole this happens in. I'm not mocking the black race. I love everyone! but...........

My blood really boils when I think of the PC, extreme liberal WHITE people. (and the yo-boys/wiggers that are their children) My aunt got fired for telling a table full of black people in the office cafeteria, "Quiet down, you guys sound like a bunch of monkeys!" Of course, they were acting like a bunch of monkeys. They were being loud and talking at the same time. Why do we have to add this racial component to all of this? My aunt is kind of slow. She didn't understand what she was saying. It's bullshit, but its Washington DC, so bullshit is the norm.



----------

And speaking of DC.... Speaking of the extreme left's pet causes.......Fuck every single person who opposes "gentrification" of this city. When the rich people move in, crime goes down, and property values go up. The people that complain are always out-of-towners. It's always the same bunch of jerkoffs who've lived here for 3 years and all of a sudden, they care about "preserving the history of the neighborhoods." Shut the fuck up, and go the fuck home. If you want to live in an "authentic neighborhood," then just move to the suburbs, which is where all the city rats have been relocated to anyways.

I'm guessing that its probably the same situation in NYC. I've never been there, but I do know that the city is 10 times safer than it was 20 years ago. So why is gentrification such a bad thing?

 

[Jamshyd]

Your basing this all off the idea that all humans are absolutely equal in all aspects(including mentally) and what you say is all very true if that were the case. However, i believe that each race has different mental capacities and abilities. Its no mistake that asians are the best at fast reaction sport like table tennis or first person shooter games as an example. People will agree that different races are certainly different physically, blacks can sprint faster as an example(all the best sprinters are black, are they not).

Even if this is true, I still don't understand how does it make the separation of race and culture difficult?

That said, Thais (A culture of East Asians) are not particularly well known for either their brightness or their table-tennis skills. They do obsess about certain online games, but I think this has more to do with culture than race.

And I've never even heard of a Malawian sprinter :D. (But I'm sure someone in Malawi races... just not world-class).

Either way, I don't see how this has anything to do with my point.

But if any of my coworkers heard me say "Wow, those guys raping virgins are fucking retarded." That makes me a racist. I'm mocking the culture in Ghana, or Gambia, or whatever hellhole this happens in. I'm not mocking the black race. I love everyone! but...........

Yes, I feel the same way .

 

[rbe10741]

i try not to be rasist. but for me sometimes its unavoidable

 

[Pharcyde]

wait I read some of this and I feel Ive got to say somthing about myself

I never said I have had bad experiences with black people.....did you assume I did by the way I posted somthing? So are you contradicintgyourselves or somthing? Am I reading to much into what you are saying? MY mind is a blur

 

[Jamshyd]

It all depends on who you're referring to ("this" and "your").

 

[rachamim]

Mooneyham: "If Germany, France, Britain and Spain became the countries that they are today, then ANY country can do the same!": THEY became the countries they ARE by using slave labour. So, should I encourage my Filipino neighbours and family to start catching whites for slaves?

"Blacks commit more crimes.": Not in Vermont, New Hampshire and 20 something other states. It depends where we are talking about (not to mention which country).

Crime has many causes BUT race is NOT one of them. There are a few intersecting dyanmics that cause SOME parts of America to have a disporportionate number of black CONVICTS. Did you notice that last capitalised/hi-lited word? CONVICTS.

Even in areas where figures are nearly in synch as to the number of arestees per race, Blacks are getting convicted at MUCH higher numbers than any other race. So, there are actually 2 issues that need to be examined, "Black arestees," and "Black convicts."


See, just because more blacks (per capita) than whites sit in prisons cells does not then translate into greater black criminality. When you have blacks predominating in urbanised areas, it is very easy to end up with greater numbers of blacks being arrested. Police are shooting fish in a barrel! Do you not imagine that it is not a whole lot easier to drive in a 5 block radius in Baltimore and round up junkies and street dealers than it would be to nab an equal amount of surburban white cocaine and Prescription Drug Addicts when driving around the town of Chevy Chase?

In the former scenario you have hundreds of vulnerable young man outside and congregating in large crowds while in the latter, people do not even walk let alone congregate outside.

But what of the reasons WHY blacks end up congregating and living in depressed urban areas? Slavery? Jim Crow? Societal bias still prevalent long after both? Broken homes due to a broken culture due to slavery that is itself due to those European Nations you threw out in your first point?

You see, it goes back to the original exploitation, of minorities BY whites. That is not to say that Blacks do not have a responsibility to stop making excuses and start doing for self, only that at the same time, you need to take into account the very real fact that this issue (like all issues) is NOT black and white (no pun intended haha).

"All Black countries where people stand with their hands out asking for free food.": You mean those same countries where those same white nations exploited all the natural resouces for more than half a milennia and raped and enslaved their Peoples? Those countries?

"Whites are naturally superior if all white nations are doing so much better, are so much more advanced than non-white nations...": As I advised Jam in a similar thread, I believe in "Second Opinion,"there is a phenomenal book that you need to read, "Guns, Germs and Steel" by (Professor) Jared Diamond from UC. The advantage that those "white nations" clearly have is mostly to do with their GEOGRAPHY and NOTHING at all to do with the complexions of their inhabitants.

Once you remove melanin from the equation, what makes a Black different from a white? "Race" only holds a partial utility in Anthropology and is fast becoming marginalised even there. IF there is NO difference between "Races," how could "white nations" be doing better by virtue of race? Please DO explain.


SlimVictor: "English was never given Official status in the US though it is the lingua franca.": Very true. Most Americans have no clue as to that fact nor do they realise that German almost became the Official Language (Ben Franklin led that push) as well as the Turkey (Franklin once ahain) almost beating out the Eagle as "National Bird." Funny how it would have worked out.

(Edited for spelling)

 

[rachamim]

Ebola: "Undocumented Latino Labour in the US HELPS State economies due to, among other reasons, pushing documented wages up by virtue of excising lower paid documented jobs...": WHAT? Please tell me you do NOT believe THAT! It does no such things. It feeds an inexhaustible pool of easily exploited low wage earners while negating the need for societal improvements on so many crucial levels.

As for the point on charged/deducted Social Security that is never fed into the system, again wrong (well MOSTLY). In a tiny number of cases (the Postville, Iowa case being a great example where you would be correct) there are employers doing that. Most though engage in cash wages, no deductions.

The sticking point FOR the continuance of the status quo MIGHT be the dearth of willing documented labourers for digging ditches at 6 US per hour. In alot of cases they actually TAKE jobs and sink the economy (construction being a great example, why pay 60 US an hour to a union man when you can pay 7 or 8 to an undoumented Latino?).

Swilow: "If Christianity were not so prevalent in alot of those African nations AIDs would not be so pervasive...": Not true. Christianity in Africa is largely a melange of synchrestic faiths that more closely resemble traditional faiths once you negate the Cross from the picture. In places like Uganda, Congo and such, it is more due to the heterosexual machismo on the part of men. Family planning is just about non-existent and not because of any Christian denomination. Traditional mores towards sex, taboos, and the well entrenched tradition of migrant labour are what is driving that epidemic.

TwistedTexan: "How many times does the news who white families being carjacked simply for being in the wrong part of town?": You are ABSOLUTELY correct! Just not for the reasons YOU imagine. Black on Black crime FAR exceeds Black on White crime BUT you would not know that because when a black family gets victimised your media could not give a shi*. Let a white family come into some trouble and it is leading off the 6PM Report.

"50% of Blacks blame their
actions/problems/ills on the white man.": Yeah, that has been my experience as well BUT when you realise than more than 90% of Blacks in America are only within 5 generations of slavery it changes the perspective. ONLY 50% complaining?

I believe that Blacks make far too many excuses BUT I ALSO believe that whites do not accept enough responsibility. It goes both ways and really wil never change until BOTH groups overcome these inherent stumbling blocks.

KStoner: "Blacks need to get over it, Stoner was not there in Mobile harming Blacks in 1962! It is called 'Forgiveness'.": Yep, you are right BUT before they can OFFER forgiveness do you not think they should know that America as a whole is sorry?

Just this past week the US Capitol in DC unveiled a plaque memorialising the Slaves that built! Your entire nation depended upon their labour. You say that why should you, as a Southerner, feel any remorse. I say that as a Sourtherner you more than any other American should appreciate the contribution made by Slaves, for 300 odd years. The Civil War had many causes but one major cause was the Slave-dependant economy and the prospect of losing that source of support. In other words, the entire South was built upon their backs and you are merely reaping the benefit. Ackowledge it, move on. As long as people like you continue to remain oblivious nothing will change.

 

[bpayne]

races are so mixed through interpopulation that anyone being racist to one group is most certainly being racist to their own group, there is no such thing as a race, we are all mixed to some extent

 

[rachamim]

Jam: "British English vs. American English.": You are correct of course, they ARE dialects within a standard language. However, part of what Aanellian said is correct. Every year they diverge further and further. Suprisingly this has accelerated in the Modern Era where as one might expect the opposite to occur with the ability to converse much more freely and the proliferation of a standardised media.

Anyway. I am sure you do not need me to tell you that often time Americans need subtitles when watching Guy Ritchie films (of course they are not in King's English but do illustrate wonderfully just how far they ARE diverging).

Indeed, Aanellian is right on when he mentions having great difficulty in comprehending even other Americans from different regions.

Myself, I am not a native speaker but in Israeli schools of my generation, when one learned English it was King's and King's spelling ("centre" for center and "labour" for labor). Today that have adopted American English. English as a whole is an interesting language, one of the most difficult to learn as well.

Ebola: "The great assimilation in English was during the Norman Occupation of Britain.": Yep, dead on.

" Languages always growing and adapting much like a living organism.": Yep times 2. Very true, that is why they are fascinating.

I wonder if most Americans realise that Spanish was spoken in most places there BEFORE English so that today's influx of Spanish speakers can easily be termed a "reversion" to the ORIGINAl language, not a CONversion to a new language. Puts "authenticity" in a much different light.

"(To Stoner): Please do not use Strawmen to discredit your opposition, regional differences within the US are usually exaggerated. There is not all that many things to differentiate bewteen Southern and Northern Americans.": Yes! The Klan is ALL OVER hahahahaha (I had to).

"Stop talking past one another...": That was the best advice I have seen in a long time. CIVILITY...

"Black on White bias is inherently different from White on Black bias due to Whites operating in a position of power, dominance and privlege.": Yes, true but I naturally feel like vomiting when I hear Black-centric pundits stating that "Black on White Racism can NOT exist due the whites operating out of privelege." Prejudice is prejudice and such academic distinctions only muddy up the waters. It often translates into a rationalisation (thus an excuse) to engage in Minority on Majority Racism.

"Nigga vs. Nigge*.": True. Blacks internalised what to them was a hurtful and very degrading word in a sort of compensatory mechanism. This internalisation allowed them to bear the degradation when faced ith its traditional usage by the white majority.

Jews have a similar but inverted dynamic with the word "Yid." It simply means "Jew" in Middle German but in its modern text it was been attached to a very negative context. While 2 Jews might say, "What's happening Yid?" A non-Jew saying, "What's up Yid?" can have very, very different connotations. It is all in the context.

Jam: "A Spaniard saying that the Spanish are the best is NOT the same as saying 'Whites are the best'. A Spaniars is talking about just that nationality where as the latter is talking about a much larger group.": The phrase you missed is "Cultural Chauvinism." When a person feels that a nationality, ethnicity or gender is superior they are a "Chauvinist."

(Edited for spelling)

 

[Papa1]

It is difficult to separate the two with definitions, so I'll attempt to provide such separation implicitly:

Let us for the sake of conventionality say that "black" is a race (and most people would agree that it is).

The black people in the US are part of American society and American culture (and of course, the sub-cultures within, especially the sub-cultures specific to African-Americans). The black people in Ethiopia are part of Ethiopian culture (and the subcultures within it). The black minority in Russia are part of Russian culture (and the subcultures within it...etc). And so on.

The only common denominator between American blacks and Ethiopian blacks is a biological trait - ie. the skin colour. Such classification is what I would consider racial classification.

A racist who thinks black people are inferior would not differentiate between the American blacks or the Russian blacks or the Ethiopians. To that person, it is this biological trait that counts, not the country of origin.

Now, if I come and tell you that I have a problem with Ethiopians specifically, my problem is not that they are black. My problem is that they are part of a society that produces Ethiopian culture, with which I have a problem, and that is why I have a problem with them.

As such, I do not think it is proper to call me a racist.

(Note that I have no problem with Ethiopia, this is just an example).

-----

Now here is an inverse example:

The white people in Italy are part of Italian culture, particularly (let's say) Milanese culture, and all the subcultures that follow. The white people in Finland are part of Finnish culture and all the subcultures that follow. The white people in Greece...etc.

Let's say I'm a white guy from Spain, and I claim that all of the above, like me, are superior to everyone else simply because they are white.

This would definitely make me a racist, merely because I glorified a large group of unrelated people simply because they share my skin colour.

If, however, I say that Spaniards are superior to all others, I am not being a racist. I may be nationalist, ethnocentric or what-have-you, but not a racist.

-----

While it may sound like I am splitting semantic hairs here, I think semantics here is an important matter, since "racist" is a very very loaded word and I see it utilized often (even by myself sometimes) erroneously since there simply isn't any other word to describe it.

On a more personal level (which is what prompted me to start this thread), I've been called a "racist" because I speak rather lowly of Thailand and Thai people due to my experience living and working in that country for a year. Anyone who has taken the time to hear out why exactly am I doing this has conceded that, not only am I not a racist, but that my sentiments are in fact justified. As someone who is actually trained to be a social critic, I have seen some machinations in the structure of Thai society that tend to produce individuals who (assuming they aren't alienated from said society) will without exception act in certain disagreeable ways as a direct result of said machinations. But I'm not about to get into another discussion of Thailand - I just want to demonstrate one of the many examples out there of someone being unfairly called a racist.

I hope this clarifies better?

Yes, that makes a lot of sense.

I'm not sure what the word for that is... I think what makes a lot of racism stupid is that it's going from personal experience to false generalisations. For example, race x is not less intelligent than race y, no matter how many times you think that a person from race x is dumb. As long as you're not making the same kind of mistake - as long as you actually do know the Thai culture, say, and you're not just jumping to a generalisation because some things about your experience there ticked you off - I'd say you're doing things fine. If you are making the same kinds of false generalisations involved in racism, it might not be racism but it'd still be guilty of the same crimes.

If someone came and lived in Canada for a year, and then passed judgement on our entire culture (whatever that might be), I'd be skeptical that he's judging all aspects specifically...

 

[Jamshyd]

I do not want to drag my Thai shtick into this.

Let me try to reply to what you're saying while attempting to stay on topic:

First, let's establish that "Thailand" and "Canada" are not races, they are nations. People associate to nationalisms by choice (legal paperwork upon birth notwithstanding), whether they realize it or not. Any kind of offence a Canadian may take from a comment made about Canada is actually a result of hurt pride rather than unfairness. You chose "us and them", then don't get too weepy if "they" insult "you [pl.]".

Second, let's establish that certain judgements are applicable to Thai (or Chinese, or Japanese, amongst others) cultures that are not applicable to Candian (or American, or Australian, amongst others) cultures. The former are collectivist, the latter are individualistic.

Collectivist cultures not only accept generalizations, but welcome them.

These are issues one never really fully realizes from the armchair. You have to travel extensively and socialize with other travellers to actually know exactly what brings about such criticisms and judgements, which are actually not passed from individual to group as may appear, but actually from a group (foreigners) to another group (those whose lands these foreigners happen upon).

As such, a lot of non-travelled westerners are simply incapable of imagining how collectivist cultures work.

The only thing I can say on this regard is to take my word for it, and try to see the fact that such criticisms actually resonate between travellers.

Furthermore, this is not limited to travellers. Collectivist and pseudo-collectivist (a la mid-east) cultures engage in such generalizations about each other on a regular basis. It is only in individualistic cultures that such practises are neither well-understood nor applicable (ie. you cannot judge someone from an individualist culture the way you judge a person from a collectivist culture). Ironically, this lack of understanding on behalf of the individualist can in itself be seen as a form of ethnocentrism...

I don't mean to sound arrogant, and I apologize if it appears so.

 

[Papa1]

First, let's establish that "Thailand" and "Canada" are not races, they are nations. People associate to nationalisms by choice (legal paperwork upon birth notwithstanding), whether they realize it or not. Any kind of offence a Canadian may take from a comment made about Canada is actually a result of hurt pride rather than unfairness. You chose "us and them", then don't get too weepy if "they" insult "you [pl.]".

Agreed. I'm taking "Canadian" and "Thai" as cultural labels.

Second, let's establish that certain judgements are applicable to Thai (or Chinese, or Japanese, amongst others) cultures that are not applicable to Candian (or American, or Australian, amongst others) cultures. The former are collectivist, the latter are individualistic. Collectivist cultures not only accept generalizations, but welcome them.

I don't have a lot of experience with this, so I can't say no...

The only thing I can say on this regard is to take my word for it, and try to see the fact that such criticisms actually resonate between travellers. ... Collectivist and pseudo-collectivist (a la mid-east) cultures engage in such generalizations about each other on a regular basis.

Neither of these points has any bearing on your arguments. The number of people that agree (or disagree) with your position is irrelevant to the legitimacy of your argument.

That said... I'm not saying that your judgement of Thai culture is wrong (both because I don't know what your judgement is, and because I know almost nothing about Thailand). I was just saying, simply, that if your judgement makes the same kinds of generalisations that are used in racism, then it would be wrong.

Without having a lot of experience with collectivist cultures, it seems to me that because of the complexity involved, passing a judgement on an entire culture, that is categorising it in terms of "like" or "dislike" - that's way too simplistic. I think that only parts of a culture can be honestly approached like that. For example, if someone told me they didn't like Thai geography I'd say they probably haven't seen everything in Thailand... I do take your point though that I am coming at it from an individualistic world view.

I don't mean to sound arrogant, and I apologize if it appears so.

I'm talking hypothetically here (again, because I don't know your view or your experiences) - so me too.

I do not want to drag my Thai shtick into this

Really? I'd love a little Thai stick in here... Sorry, bad joke!

 

[asphyx]

Epic of epicest fails there. There is no such thing as the "white race". You lose.

Sorry Mr. Semantics. Just replace 'race' with 'people' in each instance then.

And your comment hardly devalues the point that the website proves; which is that white people are better than black people in almost all aspects of life.

Everything in life isn't created equal.

 

[felix]

in my current job, which i've been doing for nearly a year, i've worked in:*

Libya (muslims, strange people, don't really like us white infidels, lazy, disorganised)

Angola (don't speak a word of english, fucking hate us white folks, can't do the job but need our help anyway, only seem to care about their cliquey tribal infighting rather than help rebuild their country after 20 years of civil war)

Russia (dour, stoic, don't and won't speak english, still mired in communism even though it didn't work, resent us westerners coming in to help)

Nigeria (disorganised, kinda lazy, love british and other western people, respectful to an embarrassing degree, corrupt)


shocking huh?

i used to think i was enlightened, before i went to these places. now i'm just enlightened in a different way. OBVIOUSLY there are exceptions to all of the above. some russians i met were wonderful and friendly, but most of them weren't. some angolans worked their asses off, but ummm... hardly any of them didn't.

perhaps one other stereotype was true as well: i was always the overpaid white western foreigner, so perhaps i got the reception that they all think i deserved.

so call me racist if you like, but i now know, with the experiences i have had over the past year, that the issue isn't as black and white** as the politically correct armchair generals seem to think.

in some ways i'm kind of troubled by my mindset over this issue. i still don't judge a person by their race when i meet them, but i can't help looking back when my last mission is over and realising that the stereotype fits probably over 90% of that country. i'd like to hear about others' experiences of this.



* i know these aren't races, but i'm sure you're intelligent enough to realise that too. it's besides the point.

** i fucking hate puns.

 

[ebola?]

God Damn it!
I had a very long reply that was lost. So I'm just going to reply somewhat selectively here.

I think it is very possible to develop a distaste for a specific society due to bad experiences directly relating to the structure of said society rather than for the biology of the people who make it, and this has nothing to do with being racist.

I concur. If you have a charitable conversant who keeps in mind that your cultural critique is based in a structural analysis, not blame of individuals or reified cultural stereotypes (and also if this is truly the shape that your critique takes), I think that you can come out of this without veering into 'ethnic chauvinism'.

While I think that imminent critique bears a certain special significance here, I don't think that we can declare imminent critique as the sole valid critique. No one really wants to hold herself to hard-line cultural relativism, where no ethical critique would be possible, and it's most unclear where we should divide culture vs. sub-culture, vs. idiosyncratic meaning-making. Thus, if we restrict ourselves solely to imminent critique, there is a large problem of determining who is 'authentic' enough to build such critique.

And that is actually why I started this thread in the first place - the English language is in desperate need for language to express cultural dissonance without the need to resort to race which can sometimes be irrelevant.

Fair enough. I can has neologism nao?

But isn't culture an integral part of race? I didn't know they were separable.

While culture and race somehow interpenetrate and present themselves intertwined (depending on how we define culture), but I believe that they can be moderately successfully separated analytically.

As a rough cut, race tends to be ascribed be the dominant framework of meaning in society, tends to be involuntary (you can't 'really' opt out of it, other than in cases of 'passing'), and functions as an instrument of oppression (maintaining privilege), and it often operates on the level of instant, unconscious categorization.

Ethnicity, on the other hand, tends to be a project of meaning-making and social network maintenance launched in reaction to oppression (particularly exclusionary practices) undertaken by the dominant group, and ethnicity tends to be voluntary and self-conscious.

It gets REALLY muddy. For example, Judaism was pretty much an ethnic project until the Nazis turned it into a racial project.

Do you all think there is no genetic correlation, and not a cultural one, that blacks are just less civilized by nature?

The evidence suggests so (Ossorio and Duster 2005).

Your basing this all off the idea that all humans are absolutely equal in all aspects(including mentally) and what you say is all very true if that were the case.

One needn't hold such a view to eschew the relationship between genetics and race.

However, i believe that each race has different mental capacities and abilities.

Upon what are you basing your conclusions, other than casual observation?

And speaking of DC.... Speaking of the extreme left's pet causes.......Fuck every single person who opposes "gentrification" of this city.

While I agree with your sub-point that the influx of hipsters to the cities in search of faux-authenticity is fucking st00pid, I find your view a tad myopic. What social conditions set the stage for such gentrification, and are these conditions just? What should happen to poor inner-city residents who are being priced out of their homes?

Ebola: "Undocumented Latino Labour in the US HELPS State economies due to, among other reasons, pushing documented wages up by virtue of excising lower paid documented jobs...": WHAT? Please tell me you do NOT believe THAT! It does no such things. It feeds an inexhaustible pool of easily exploited low wage earners while negating the need for societal improvements on so many crucial levels.

Perhaps I spoke with insufficient nuance initially. This inexhaustible pool of highly exploited low-wage workers relegates 'native' residents and to a certain extent documented immigrants into more privileged sectors of the labor-market, benefiting such individuals directly. Furthermore, I would hazard a guess that the existence of such a labor sector of ready hyper-exploitation increased aggregate production by reducing the cost of business outlays for firms in this sector.

Is such an arrangement just or overall beneficial for society as a whole? Hell no, but within a certain given context, the flip-side of oppression is privilege.

As for the point on charged/deducted Social Security that is never fed into the system, again wrong (well MOSTLY). In a tiny number of cases (the Postville, Iowa case being a great example where you would be correct) there are employers doing that. Most though engage in cash wages, no deductions.

This has been becoming less and less true/consequential, as the expansion of the reach of the INS has forced employers of undocumented workers to take more care 'cooking the books', since roughly the mid-nineties to date (Massey et al. 2002).

The sticking point FOR the continuance of the status quo MIGHT be the dearth of willing documented labourers for digging ditches at 6 US per hour. In alot of cases they actually TAKE jobs and sink the economy (construction being a great example, why pay 60 US an hour to a union man when you can pay 7 or 8 to an undoumented Latino?).

To reiterate a bit, It is my opinion that without this pool of hyper-exploitable labor, more citizens would be relegated to earning minimum wage in such jobs. This 'union man' is becoming more and more a myth.
...
Now your points in general are pretty much spot on and put more eloquently than I would be capable of.

Prejudice is prejudice and such academic distinctions only muddy up the waters. It often translates into a rationalisation (thus an excuse) to engage in Minority on Majority Racism.

Here, I have to disagree. Prejudice functions drastically differently depending on the context in which it inheres. The Black pundits, as you say, certainly aren't putting forward an adequate analysis, but I don't think that equivocating all prejudice is the proper solution.

Jews have a similar but inverted dynamic with the word "Yid." It simply means "Jew" in Middle German but in its modern text it was been attached to a very negative context. While 2 Jews might say, "What's happening Yid?" A non-Jew saying, "What's up Yid?" can have very, very different connotations. It is all in the context.

Interesting. I've never observed this dynamic, as I've operated almost entirely in social contexts where Jews have pretty much been assimilated into the American generi-white.

These are issues one never really fully realizes from the armchair. You have to travel extensively and socialize with other travellers to actually know exactly what brings about such criticisms and judgements, which are actually not passed from individual to group as may appear, but actually from a group (foreigners) to another group (those whose lands these foreigners happen upon).

Of course, there is also something to be said for the insights of the 'outsider within'. For example, it's no accident that secular Jews are severely 'overrepresented' in European classical and post-classical social theory (and still are among my colleagues...it's pretty cool).

Furthermore, this is not limited to travellers. Collectivist and pseudo-collectivist (a la mid-east) cultures engage in such generalizations about each other on a regular basis. It is only in individualistic cultures that such practises are neither well-understood nor applicable (ie. you cannot judge someone from an individualist culture the way you judge a person from a collectivist culture). Ironically, this lack of understanding on behalf of the individualist can in itself be seen as a form of ethnocentrism...

Ah. Great point, and very neat logical 'inversion'. I think that your argument stands, as long as we carve out room for exceptions.

And your comment hardly devalues the point that the website proves; which is that white people are better than black people in almost all aspects of life.

The 'point' of your link and the 'evidence' presented hardly needs devaluation. Please, by all means, keep digging your own grave.

 

[elbroski]

It's absolutely incomprehensible to me how intelligent humans in the 21st century still hold onto fear and hate so fervently. The color of ones skin means nothing. It is of absolutely zero importance. Is it so hard to see that somehow who is short, black, fat, skinny, girl, boy is just a human like you. The physical appearance of the shell that we occupy for this short interval of time on earth is so utterly trivial and purposeless. Like it just pisses me off that there are people on this forum who are so blind and asleep. I know the majority of you guys (and girls) are good souls and I really love sharing this community with you all, but sometimes I'm just so disgusted that things like this are even topics. The very concept of racism should have died 300 years ago along with monotheistic religion, gender laws and concepts, and drug prohibition. All just pointless laws, stereotypes, and mandates that serve only to assuage the fear of the paranoid few at the top of the power structure.

 

[Jamshyd]

I concur. If you have a charitable conversant who keeps in mind that your cultural critique is based in a structural analysis, not blame of individuals or reified cultural stereotypes (and also if this is truly the shape that your critique takes), I think that you can come out of this without veering into 'ethnic chauvinism'.

See, you have a very good point there. A problematic one, too.

a. Like many issues of discussion, a lot is weighed upon faith that the conversant actually knows where you're coming from.

b. Chicken or egg: Are the stereotypes reified, or is it reality that precipitates said stereotypes? In my case, I am able to present a coherent structural analysis for my extreme criticisms of Thai society, and even quote sources to back me up*, hehe.

While I think that imminent critique bears a certain special significance here, I don't think that we can declare imminent critique as the sole valid critique. No one really wants to hold herself to hard-line cultural relativism, where no ethical critique would be possible, and it's most unclear where we should divide culture vs. sub-culture, vs. idiosyncratic meaning-making. Thus, if we restrict ourselves solely to imminent critique, there is a large problem of determining who is 'authentic' enough to build such critique.

I have a chronic issue with the word "imminent". I think I just plain don't know what it means. It seems to occur in the most unlikely of places: The Iŝa Upanishad (Mascaro translation), Foucault...etc. Can you explain to me what you mean by it?

Even the Oxford Concise dictionary of English Etymology fails. It tells me that it is of Latin origin imminēns, and it means "Project, be impending".

Nebulous semantics is nebulous .

And speaking of nebulousness... see, I think the sad truth is that no matter how much Academic sterilization is dealt forth, it is simply human to tackle other-human by group.

Again, one finds that all exceptions to generalizations in collectivist societies are in fact people who have been alienated from said societies. I myself am an example of such. While I retain a lot of semitic features, my very body (if nothing more) twists said feature as to render them antagonistic to the group if bared.

Fair enough. I can has neologism nao?

Absolutely. But "Ethnic Chauvinism" isn't always sufficient. Take the alienated critic (*cough*). He is not glorifying one group at the expense of another, but rather pointing out the errors of large groups as an alienated individual (who might, in fact, be in a de facto group of other alienated individuals.

Am I making any sense? I've been immersing myself in Wilde and Nabokov lately and I think I may have picked up a textually-transmitted disease . If this is the case, I apologize.

As a rough cut, race tends to be ascribed be the dominant framework of meaning in society, tends to be involuntary (you can't 'really' opt out of it, other than in cases of 'passing'), and functions as an instrument of oppression (maintaining privilege), and it often operates on the level of instant, unconscious categorization.

Ethnicity, on the other hand, tends to be a project of meaning-making and social network maintenance launched in reaction to oppression (particularly exclusionary practices) undertaken by the dominant group, and ethnicity tends to be voluntary and self-conscious.

I do support very much the idea that race is involuntary while culture is, and definitely agree that it really does usually end up being a political instrument of dominance and submission. Race is not something that one can escape. Look what happened to Michael Jackson. Nor is sexuality. Look what happened to Michael Jackson. Culture, on the other hand, can be actively rejected and even subverted. Look what happened to Michael Jackson.

It gets REALLY muddy. For example, Judaism was pretty much an ethnic project until the Nazis turned it into a racial project.

It isn't too muddy, really - just politic that can easily be circumvented by intelligence. I really don't wish to talk about Nazis because that's what we do all the time .

The evidence suggests so (Ossorio and Duster 2005).

I'm interested. I can haz biblio ref?

a whole? Hell no, but within a certain given context, the flip-side of oppression is privilege.

Of course, there is also something to be said for the insights of the 'outsider within'. For example, it's no accident that secular Jews are severely 'overrepresented' in European classical and post-classical social theory (and still are among my colleagues...it's pretty cool).

You mean the Aliened? yes .

Ah. Great point, and very neat logical 'inversion'. I think that your argument stands, as long as we carve out room for exceptions.

Those being, say... the Alienated?