L'Oreal sack first transgender model for racism

[IWat]

I'm not sure of your point ? What is happening in the Congo isn't industrialisation it's slavery and while in you can make a immoral case about China, there is no case for the essentially shiny labour camps(Also as for $135 billion foreign aid that's nothing, considering Apple sold $215.6bn of products last year.)

But the point is, white westerns are benefiting from the exploitation and slavery of non white people - ''You can benefit from racism and not be a racist person''. Could the model have worded her case better, well yes but the fact this is be talked about on television, is something of a positive .

My point is to say that this is not something that is exclusive to non-white people. Workhouses fit exactly the definition of slavery.

So are black Westerners and others? I don't see some kind of boycott of Apple and the like in the West by any ethnicity. I'm sure she also owns items that were made under those conditions. But it's worse when a white person does it?

EDIT: If you look at Apple's sales for examples, more than 50% of their sales are from outside Europe and NA: http://uk.businessinsider.com/apple-iphone-sales-region-china-chart-2017-3 Their 2nd biggest market is China...

 

[Redlambs]

Is it just white westerners benefitting from slavery these days though?

Considering people just want to be equal, surely she's saying that's what she aspires to herself then? If not, what's the plan here, tear down society and somehow go back in time to where we start as equals?

Lots and lots of blame, but no actual answers there. Again, I'm not sure what I supposed to be doing about all this, no one seems to have any idea what the end goal is either.

 

[Redlambs]

While I understand her point, her "I have got many, many allies of all races" sounds a lot like "I'm not racist, I have black friends".

Allies is also a strange way to put it too.

 

[Dumbat12]

They were definitely profitable for the elites and businessmen, even if they weren't for the national governments directly.

That's accurate.

 

[berbatrick]

As I said before, it's a cultural thing rather than a racial thing. I don't think the colour of your skin is as important as where you grow up, who you grow up with, etc. Obviously it doesn't all come down to personal choice, but you yourself as an adult have the power to change your situation if you wish. As for me reducing it down to a singular level, I'd dispute that. On a singular level, of course there are people who are prejudiced against black people, I don't however believe the system itself is.



Well there's this, for starters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income

It has nothing to do with your skin colour, and everything to do with your choices and culture. For example:

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/editorials/2012-01-27/story/three-rules-staying-out-poverty



Now consider that 72% of African-American births are out of wedlock.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...on-lemon-says-more-72-percent-african-americ/

Asians in America on the other hand, have just 17% of babies born out of wedlock. Is it a coincidence, is it white privilege, or is it just people's choices having repercussions?

Look, I'll extend an olive branch here. I can understand people who believe white privilege to be a thing on the basis that white culture is mainstream. If you open a magazine or go into a shop you're going to see white people more widely represented. But at the end of the day white people are still the majority, it would be the same in countries where blacks are the majority and whites are the minority. I just don't think skin colour is 100% to blame for where people end up in life, and blaming systemic racism is just another way to absolve people of responsibility for their own poor choices.

Briefly: many of these cultural signifiers (single parenthood) are intimately linked, and often the result of, systemic issues. Example: the war on drugs destroys families, and affects minorities and the poor most (often by design).

 

[BobbyManc]

Not sure if trolling. It wasn't seen as a "detriment" to Europe, Europe was civilizing "savages" in their mind. By the time Europe colonized Africa money wasn't an issue to them because Europe had direct control over every trade route in the world and losing a few quids didn't matter to them. So in a sense - yes, Africa benefited from colonialism much more than Europe did because of the introduction of modern day medicine, infrastructure, governing system - basically getting them out of the stone age. If it wasn't for colonialism, it's highly likely that Africa would be a bunch of primitive tribes right now that never saw an outside face.

Read a proper history book, you fecking idiot. Africa benefited from colonialism? Africa would be primitive tribes if it wasn't for Europe i.e the white man? I don't even know where to start with your racist bullshit.

 

[Dumbat12]

Read a proper history book, you fecking idiot. Africa benefited from colonialism? Africa would be primitive tribes if it wasn't for Europe i.e the white man? I don't even know where to start with your racist bullshit.

Facts are now racist. History is history, I couldn't give less of a feck about how you want it to be.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

You choose to believe systemic and institutionalised racism doesn't exist because you aren't on the receiving end of it.
Trying to tell people who are victims of this that all they needed to do was make better personal choices is wholly ignorant.

You always seem to wade into these kind of debates with such a sharp spear.

You need to at least attempt to be more nuanced.

Yes systemic and institutionalised racism is a 'thing'. Both historically, and currently. But lets not pretend that a blanket statement of 'White people oppress, black people get oppressed' is anything like a factual comment in this day and age. It certainly can't be applied globally. To do so is ridiculous. It can't even be applied across whole countries.

It's the same with womens rights or LGBT rights, or any 'rights'. The moment you add a qualifier that doesn't simply read 'Human rights' you've already picked a side.

If a woman in an office leads a team of people she's more likely to recruit more women. If an Indian male leads a team he has a tendency to recruit both more males, and more people of Indian descent. White males recruit a wider variety of people than any other demographic.

You know why? There are so damn many of us. Supposedly "We" never feel threatened because we have always been in a position of privilege. 'Everyone else' is railing against this but the key point in it all is missed. White males below the age of 40 simply don't have an idea of "I've made it, now I'm going to help out my people". We have no people. White 30 years olds have just as many issues with those old white folks as anyone of any different race, colour or gender. We're all in the same damn system.

We have completely jumped the shark in terms of how we view diversity in the workplace and world.

I honestly have no dog in this fight. I'm a good person and I treat everyone I encounter in life with respect and fairness. I sure as sh1t don't wear any white guilt and I never will. It's ridiculous.

The ultimate irony is that groups that rail against 'The White Man' are the only people that see us as a group. We are not a damn group. There are no secret handshakes. We don't walk into rooms and recognise each other as being 'the same'. Those kinds of terms are not part of our lexicon.

It dumfounds me that people make all of this a 'Them vs Us' issue. It can never be that reductive. That immediately draws battle lines for nonsensical noise to be heard.

It's always 'Us Vs Troublesome issue'. That's it. Every single issue. Every time. A kaleidoscopic rainbow of people that need to solve issues together.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

No, they were not.

They quite clearly were. In the 1880s, the British reaped enormous sums from African colonies. I can probably find a figure, but it's quite hard to calculate. The silver and gold mines of Africa filled the royal coffers for decades.

The American colonies were funded by Africans BROUGHT from other Africans. Europe started actively colonizing Africa much later so your point doesn't count. We're talking about how profitable the African coloniers itself were, not about the slave trade.

You're right. There's nothing wrong with the slave trade as many slaves were sold by black people (at the point of a gun/unequal power distribution in negotiation). Except that isn't right at all.

Furthermore I entirely disagree with that statement considering that Europe didn't control anything of Africa until that point and there is really no argument to hold that Africans were the foundation of anything, they were just slaves.

You can't speak about the profitability of African colonies without speaking about the slave trade. The slave trade enabled the colonization of the Americas. To say that Europe didn't control Africa before the 19th century is absurd. The number of expeditions are in the thousands, many of which were incredibly substantial (as in pillaging). The colonisation of Africa wasn't a 19th century phenomenon. It didn't begin with the Berlin Conference. That was simply a meeting of empires to try and create a more formal understanding of how to proceed. The colonisation had been in flux for centuries.


Your position is that the colonies weren't profitable and that Europe owes nothing to Africa for its wealth. That's one of the most bizarre positions I've ever encountered. It would be more palatable if the notion of savagery and other (probably unintended) ethnocentric biases weren't prevalent throughout everything you write.

Still, I'd like to see your data/sources concerning colonial profitability circa 1700-1890. I have a few journals I can scan quickly, mostly concerning the Americas around the time of abolition (British abolition, not American), but with finite sums. It shows immense profitability on the back of slavery. It's not even covertly hidden, but blatantly stated by government figures.

 

[BobbyManc]

Facts are now racist. History is history, I couldn't give less of a feck about how you want it to be.

Yes, it is racist to claim the whole of Africa would be uncivilised if it was not for white people. Not only is it racist, it's so laughably and embarrassingly untrue I truly pity you. I don't venture into the non-football threads too much, but I'm amazed posters are allowed to spout such baseless and racist nonsense.

 

[JustAFan]

Is it just white westerners benefitting from slavery these days though?

Considering people just want to be equal, surely she's saying that's what she aspires to herself then? If not, what's the plan here, tear down society and somehow go back in time to where we start as equals?

Lots and lots of blame, but no actual answers there. Again, I'm not sure what I supposed to be doing about all this, no one seems to have any idea what the end goal is either.

Considering slavery was not invented by white westerners and thus they were never the only ones to profit by it then no it is not just white westerners who benefited.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

My ancestors came to England with William the Conqueror in 1066 and were granted estates and titles for services rendered at Hastings.

As such, we conquered the English and as Normans the French before that. The Welsh the Scotts the Irish and probably every indigenous people from Australia, India, and China to the Easter Islanders.

I struggle to understand why I should be more ashamed of the route to being related to the conquerors rather than the conquered ( which I also am)and why there is a line in history when this became more wrong or shameful than any other time. I also struggle to understand why people are that concerned about what my ancestors did to their ancestors when, if we are being honest, if the shoe was on the other foot they would have done exactly the same thing and often did when the shoe was on the other foot.

History is full of great stories but they are about as relevant to how I feel about anyone alive today as Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones.

 

[Redlambs]

I'm still not sure why moving forward together = forgetting about slavery.

Why can't it be accepted that I am, and never will be, a slaver and hold no ill will towards any one else, so I've nothing to feel guilty or priviledged for. I grew up in East london, an incredibly multicultural place hence why perhaps I don't understand racism as deeply as others, simply because it's not really been something I ever saw. We all went to the same schools, we all had the same opportunites and that continues to this day when my boys go to their new school tomorrow already having made a rather diverse collection of friends. Only they don't see it as diverse, they just see friends. The way it should be. This is my own little part of the world, obviously, but perhaps I need to be told more what I'm supposed to feel guilty about.

Saying all this doesn't make me oblivious, or am I saying racism and white priviledge doesn't exist. But what I am saying is that I'm not here to feel guilty about something I had and continue to have no control over, as I don't life my life like those that came before. I don't belittle what happened, I don't think it should be swept under the carpet, nor do I ever think we should just rest on our laurels in the fight against all forms of discrimination. I fully support diversity campaigns and people speaking out about it.

But what I don't support is the idea that this isn't racist because it's from the lips of a half black girl. One that has been afforded plenty of priviledge it seems herself to boot. She said all white people are racist and are from birth, whether or not she meant otherwise, that is what she said. That is what she was fired for, and in the eyes of the law she made racist comments.

But again, perhaps the worst thing this has brought to light for me is that no one still has any answers as to what exactly we are meant to be doing about this that we aren't already.

 

[IWat]

Considering slavery was not invented by white westerners and thus they were never the only ones to profit by it then no it is not just white westerners who benefited.

This is part of what confuses me. The Atlantic slave trade is estimated at between 12-15 mil. The Arab slave trade is estimated at 17mil with roughly 5mil coming from Africa. Only one seems to get condemnation? And I am not saying it shouldn't, but I don't see anything like the same kind of blame being pinned at Arab nations doors?

 

[Dumbat12]

They quite clearly were. In the 1880s, the British reaped enormous sums from African colonies. I can probably find a figure, but it's quite hard to calculate. The silver and gold mines of Africa filled the royal coffers for decades.

Not true at all. No idea where you're taking this shit from.

You're right. There's nothing wrong with the slave trade as many slaves were sold by black people (at the point of a gun/unequal power distribution in negotiation). Except that isn't right at all.

Except you're looking at history from 21st century lenses. Was it wrong? It sure was. But back then people did not think so. Back then it was practiced by virtually everyone.

You can't speak about the profitability of African colonies without speaking about the slave trade. The slave trade enabled the colonization of the Americas. To say that Europe didn't control Africa before the 19th century is absurd. The number of expeditions are in the thousands, many of which were incredibly substantial (as in pillaging). The colonisation of Africa wasn't a 19th century phenomenon. It didn't begin with the Berlin Conference. That was simply a meeting of empires to try and create a more formal understanding of how to proceed. The colonisation had been in flux for centuries.

No, there's no evidence of this. Johnston and Williamson's work on estimating GDP back to 1790 shows that an estimated 86% of all US economic growth as measured by GDP took place post-1945. The abolition of slavery in the antebellum South correlates closely with a net reduction of real-term GDP of just 4.6% according to their work; the US economy returns to pre-abolition levels of overall prosperity on a per capita basis by 1872, and net growth is achieved as early as 1868. Whilst a 5% retraction in GDP in a single year is a harsh recession for any economy, it is nothing compared to the Great Depression; between 1930 and 1933, the US economy loses more than 25% of its 1929 GDP. So there is nothing really to suggest that slavery was the backbone of the European colonies as the abolishment of slavery didn't cause any sort of catastrophic downfall of any European colony in the world.

Your position is that the colonies weren't profitable and that Europe owes nothing to Africa for its wealth. That's one of the most bizarre positions I've ever encountered. It would be more palatable if the notion of savagery and other (probably unintended) ethnocentric biases weren't prevalent throughout everything you write.

Yes, the African colonies for the most part were unprofitable. I already explained why they were colonized. For example, when Italy and Germany formed and started rushing to colonize, they didn't colonize because they expected any profits from their colonies, but because they wanted the prestige and legitimacy as an European power. There's a lot more to colonization than just an extraction of wealth. And no, Europe owns absolutely nothing to Africa, Africa owes to Europe much of what it is today. I'm sorry, but to deny this is just stupid. The Scramble for Africa provided nothing to the Europeans, but it sure did provide a lot to Africa's advancement into the modern age.

Still, I'd like to see your data/sources concerning colonial profitability crica 1700-1890. I have a few journals I can scan quickly, mostly concerning the Americas around the time of abolition (British abolition, not American), but with finite sums. It shows immense profitability on the back of slavery. It's not even covertly hidden, but blatantly stated by government figures.

Please, show me. I'm curious because I know for a fact that much of the colonies "profitability" didn't even go to the governments, but to the pockets of the companies and individuals who extracted the resources.

Yes, it is racist to claim the whole of Africa would be uncivilised if it was not for white people. Not only is it racist, it's so laughably and embarrassingly untrue I truly pity you. I don't venture into the non-football threads too much, but I'm amazed posters are allowed to spout such baseless and racist nonsense.

You don't even know what you're talking about yet you see fit to call me a racist. Never claimed the whole of Africa would be uncivilized, and everything I said is taken straight from history, not my opinion. It's a shame we can't discuss serious history topics without someone using, quite frankly, meaningless words as "racist", "white man" and whatever else you can think of. Either provide a counter-argument to what I'm saying or don't even bother to post at all. What's the point of calling me a racist when you can't back what you're saying?

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Please, show me. I'm curious because I know for a fact that much of the colonies "profitability" didn't even go to the governments, but to the pockets of the companies and individuals who extracted the resources.

You're aware of the overlapping nature of companies such as East India and their African equivalents with the British government? As in tax revenue?

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

And no, Europe owns absolutely nothing to Africa, Africa owes to Europe much of what it is today.

If that's you're starting point, then this is my end point.

One of the most stupid assertions in the history of stupidity.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Except you're looking at history from 21st century lenses. Was it wrong? It sure was. But back then people did not think so. Back then it was practiced by virtually everyone.

One last point. Complete and utter fecking drivel.

So many contemporary moral tracts dating from 1600 onward which espouse disgust at the slave trade. You're genuinely uninformed in this matter.

 

[2 man midfield]

'Having a full time job' - not that I disagree, but surely actually not being discriminated against during the job process is crucial right?

http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873

Firstly this study is from 2003, so it might be a little out of date. However I'm not disputing that individual racists exist, I realise they do and I'm happy to protest them with you. However affirmative action groups do exist which specifically seek to eliminate discrimination from the hiring processes, and laws which ban discrimination within hiring based on race. Look at E-Race for example, which have had significant success in doing so.

https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/initiatives/e-race/

That isn't white privilege within the government, that is the government going out of its way to eliminate the individual racists within the system. These are the ones we can fight.

Black people didn't even have the same rights as white people as recently as 60 years ago, but yeah we're all just victims of our bad decisions

When I say that I mean in this day and age. Are you really accusing me of not seeing racism in the past? Of course systemic racism was a thing, I just don't see it in the modern day. Of course there are going to be some elements of a hangover from that period, but as I said these are individual racists, and these are the ones we can do something about. They aren't reflected in the system anymore, and they don't represent the views of 99% of white people. So for someone to accuse "all white people" of being racist when we're just not, and white governments are doing everything in their power to weed out the last traces of discrimination, I just don't buy it.

 

[2 man midfield]

Briefly: many of these cultural signifiers (single parenthood) are intimately linked, and often the result of, systemic issues. Example: the war on drugs destroys families, and affects minorities and the poor most (often by design).

As I said, personal choice plays a role. If you choose not to get involved with drugs, you won't suffer the effects of going to prison for being involved with drugs.

 

[2cents]

I can understand people who believe white privilege to be a thing on the basis that white culture is mainstream. If you open a magazine or go into a shop you're going to see white people more widely represented. But at the end of the day white people are still the majority, it would be the same in countries where blacks are the majority and whites are the minority. I just don't think skin colour is 100% to blame for where people end up in life, and blaming systemic racism is just another way to absolve people of responsibility for their own poor choices.

My experience of having lived and travelled in many non-white countries has been the opposite - being recognizably white, or at least Western, tends to open a lot of doors to hospitality across Asia and North Africa (I've no experience in subsaharan Africa). Reasons for this? In some cases, the perception that a white person is carrying around a wad of cash. Although this really only applies when haggling in a bazaar, etc. Then there is the racism prevalent in many non-white societies which values lighter shades of skin. But I think it's mostly related to a post-colonial mentality that is still in thrall to the idea of the "White Man".

 

[Carolina Red]

I'm still not sure why moving forward together = forgetting about slavery.

Why can't it be accepted that I am, and never will be, a slaver and hold no ill will towards any one else, so I've nothing to feel guilty or priviledged for. I grew up in East london, an incredibly multicultural place hence why perhaps I don't understand racism as deeply as others, simply because it's not really been something I ever saw. We all went to the same schools, we all had the same opportunites and that continues to this day when my boys go to their new school tomorrow already having made a rather diverse collection of friends. Only they don't see it as diverse, they just see friends. The way it should be. This is my own little part of the world, obviously, but perhaps I need to be told more what I'm supposed to feel guilty about.

Saying all this doesn't make me oblivious, or am I saying racism and white priviledge doesn't exist. But what I am saying is that I'm not here to feel guilty about something I had and continue to have no control over, as I don't life my life like those that came before. I don't belittle what happened, I don't think it should be swept under the carpet, nor do I ever think we should just rest on our laurels in the fight against all forms of discrimination. I fully support diversity campaigns and people speaking out about it.

But what I don't support is the idea that this isn't racist because it's from the lips of a half black girl. One that has been afforded plenty of priviledge it seems herself to boot. She said all white people are racist and are from birth, whether or not she meant otherwise, that is what she said. That is what she was fired for, and in the eyes of the law she made racist comments.

But again, perhaps the worst thing this has brought to light for me is that no one still has any answers as to what exactly we are meant to be doing about this that we aren't already.

My own family owned slaves... we had about 70 on a plantation in Alabama. After the Civil War ended, those same people were reduced to share cropping to make ends meet.

That said, I feel the same as you do. I will not be blamed for the transgressions of my ancestors. I cannot help what they did, but I can help educate people about it and use my own family as an example of how racism and slavery are and were wrong and need and needed to be purged from our society. As a teacher and a coach, I feel I am doing my due diligence to right whatever wrongs I can that my family had a part in.

 

[Dumbat12]

You're aware of the overlapping nature of companies such as East India and their African equivalents with the British government? As in tax revenue?

Yes. Provide your data which you said you have.

If that's you're starting point, then this is my end point.

One of the most stupid assertions in the history of stupidity.

What the hell do you mean? Explain to me what part of that I got wrong? Africa, for the most part, was EXTREMELY backwards before Europe found them and colonized them. This is not just me talking, it's fecking history. In what way is it stupid? Because you don't like it? Because you just refuse to admit it was so out of some vague moral superiority?

One last point. Complete and utter fecking drivel.

So many contemporary moral tracts dating from 1600 onward which espouse disgust at the slave trade. You're genuinely uninformed in this matter.

Yes, a couple of individuals against the entire world... Slavery was practiced EVERYWHERE and it was seen as a normal thing to do by every country and the vast majority of the population.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

What the hell do you mean? Explain to me what part of that I got wrong? Africa, for the most part, was EXTREMELY backwards before Europe found them and colonized them. This is not just me talking, it's fecking history. In what way is it stupid? Because you don't like it? Because you just refuse to admit it was so out of some vague moral superiority?

It's stupid because it's uninformed. You have literally no clue about which you speak. Have you studied the cultures you're calling "backward"? Because I've spent years studying exactly that, and they can only be labelled backwards by people who aren't intelligent enough to comprehend cultural relatively. You're the embodiment of ethnocentrism. I didn't think it existed, but here it is.

Yes. Provide your data which you said you have.

I will presently. It involves searching old papers, but the figures are there.

Yes, a couple of individuals against the entire world... Slavery was practiced EVERYWHERE and it was seen as a normal thing to do by every country and the vast majority of the population.

It wasn't a couple of individuals, it was a movement unrestricted by nationality or geography.

 

[2 man midfield]

My experience of having lived and travelled in many non-white countries has been the opposite - being recognizably white, or at least Western, tends to open a lot of doors to hospitality across Asia and North Africa (I've no experience in subsaharan Africa). Reasons for this? In some cases, the perception that a white person is carrying around a wad of cash. Although this really only applies when haggling in a bazaar, etc. Then there is the racism prevalent in many non-white societies which values lighter shades of skin. But I think it's mostly related to a post-colonial mentality that is still in thrall to the idea of the "White Man".

Hmm, yeah you may have a point here. I do think, as you say economics plays a role though.

 

[Moved To Differently]

You always seem to wade into these kind of debates with such a sharp spear.

You need to at least attempt to be more nuanced.

Yes systemic and institutionalised racism is a 'thing'. Both historically, and currently. But lets not pretend that a blanket statement of 'White people oppress, black people get oppressed' is anything like a factual comment in this day and age. It certainly can't be applied globally. To do so is ridiculous. It can't even be applied across whole countries.

If a woman in an office leads a team of people she's more likely to recruit more women. If an Indian male leads a team he has a tendency to recruit both more males, and more people of Indian descent. White males recruit a wider variety of people than any other demographic.

When I think about the lack of black and ethnic representation in politics, industry and other social institutions I look at it the same way. Say we discovered an alien colony on a part of Mars inhabitable by human beings consisting of about a 1000 and there's an agreement we'll send 20 humans to live and work amongst them. How long would it be before a human being held a real position of power or wealth or prestige in that colony. The obvious comparison I'm making is perhaps a facile one because the genesis of their arrival in that society wouldn't be as slaves but it makes the point that the end goal of racial equality is something that will take many more generations (if ever) before it comes to fruition but denying things like 'white privilege', underlying racism and complicit racism through consensus/ apathy makes that idea seem further away. And for me that's the sentiment of what she's saying and so to dismiss her purely as a misguided racist herself is to ignore the salient points she makes.

The ultimate irony is that groups that rail against 'The White Man' are the only people that see us as a group. We are not a damn group. There are no secret handshakes. We don't walk into rooms and recognise each other as being 'the same'. Those kinds of terms are not part of our lexicon.

That's the point she's making. It's that it's privilege you never thought to question because you can't even see it. About 18 months ago I found myself in trouble with the police for a pretty serious offence that could easily have seen me serving jail time. Instead I was given a probation order including alcohol treatment sessions. For the same offence albeit slightly different circumstances I know of people who were given custodial sentences. At the the alcohol sessions there were about a dozen men who I came to know and they were all white. So I ask myself if drugs and alcohol are only ever mitigating circumstances in offences committed by fairer skinned people and had I been a few shades darker whether I would have got jail time instead?

Likewise in factory jobs I've held for two of the most major companies' in their sector I see that from the lowliest leadership position (team leader) all the way up are exclusively white guys and girls, some who are just barely old enough to buy their own drink and never went to college let alone university. These guys who are even younger than me probably never question why in a work force that's about 85 percent black those in leadership positions are almost exclusively white, with no other common denominator (education, experience etc.) except being white.

Nobody's saying it's a secret society where you all sit around discussing how you'll divide up the wealth you've accumulated through oppression both historical and contemporary, it's probably not even something you can see unless you objectively look at it with purpose but there's no doubt it exists.

It dumfounds me that people make all of this a 'Them vs Us' issue. It can never be that reductive. That immediately draws battle lines for nonsensical noise to be heard.

I agree, and I think there are those with vested interests in propogating racism amongst the working class as a means to divert their attention from those who should really be accountable for the inequality that affects all poor people. Take for example the stirring up of xenophobia, this idea that immigrants are to blame for things like austerity and then equally damaging to the candor of a social discussion, the use of that pejorative against otherwise fair-minded people wanting to have an open and honest discussion about how immigration is affecting the country.

It's always 'Us Vs Troublesome issue'. That's it. Every single issue. Every time. A kaleidoscopic rainbow of people that need to solve issues together.

 

[Carolina Red]

@Mciahel Goodman - one of the more interesting essays I recall from a class in uni on European imperialism/colonialism was one that speculated on the history of colonies (it focused on Africa) had they waited until the later years of the 20th century to move for independence.

What it was speculating on was the "what if" of "what if the colonies had waited until significant improvements in infrastructure, education system, etc. had been put in place at the expense of their colonial rulers before moving toward independence... would they be in a better place than they are now?"

I ran across it on Jstor while doing some research and ended up reading it even though it didn't pertain to my research topic.

 

[Redlambs]

My own family owned slaves... we had about 70 on a plantation in Alabama. After the Civil War ended, those same people were reduced to share cropping to make ends meet.

That said, I feel the same as you do. I will not be blamed for the transgressions of my ancestors. I cannot help what they did, but I can help educate people about it and use my own family as an example of how racism and slavery are and were wrong and need and needed to be purged from our society. As a teacher and a coach, I feel I am doing my due diligence to right whatever wrongs I can that my family had a part in.

Surely you are doing exactly what you should be doing? What more can you do!

I fully understand it's down to circumstance and where I happen to have been born and raised, but I've never climbed any ladder over anyone else and have never had anything handed to me that anyone else hadn't. My family were always poor and I can't find any history of slave ownership either.

Yet I'm not allowed to be offended (and let's make it clear, I'm not anyway), when a black woman from the same city no less, calls me, my gf and my two little boys racist and not only that, but suggests we are all still openly fine with that because we do nothing. Then to boot, doesn't even suggest what the feck we are supposed to do!


Racism is racism. I can't honestly see how we can eradicate it when people insist on thinking and acting like anyone has any moral authority when spewing it.

 

[Dumbat12]

It's stupid because it's uninformed. You have literally no clue about which you speak. Have you studied the cultures you're calling "backward"? Because I've spent years studying exactly that, and they can only be labelled backwards by people who aren't intelligent enough to comprehend cultural relatively. You're the embodiment of ethnocentrism. I didn't think it existed, but here it is.

Well, then teach me about the various cultures of Subsaharan Africa, if you please. Because I do admit while I'm not that familiar with them, I doubt you're anymore familiar with them than I am. Because even though the Ghana, Songhai and Mali Empire were relatively advanced for their time, they were certainly nothing special and still backwards compared to Europe, the Middle East and China.

I will presently. It involves searching old papers, but the figures are there.

Ok.

It wasn't a couple of individuals, it was a movement unrestricted by nationality or geography.

What movement are you talking about?

 

[Carolina Red]

Surely you are doing exactly what you should be doing? What more can you do!

I fully understand it's down to circumstance and where I happen to have been born and raised, but I've never climbed any ladder over anyone else and have never had anything handed to me that anyone else hadn't. My family were always poor and I can't find any history of slave ownership either.

Yet I'm not allowed to be offended (and let's make it clear, I'm not anyway), when a black woman from the same city no less, calls me, my gf and my two little boys racist and not only that, but suggests we are all still openly fine with that because we do nothing. Then to boot, doesn't even suggest what the feck we are supposed to do!

Racism is racism. I can't honestly see how we can eradicate it when people insist on thinking and acting like anyone has any moral authority when spewing it.

I agree completely here.

She can say all she wants about my ancestors, I talk bad about them to my classes all the time, but leave me out of it.

 

[Carolina Red]

What movement are you talking about?

I'd imagine abolitionism

The history of European abolitionism is quite long, dating back to King Louis X of France.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Well, then teach me about the various cultures of Subsaharan Africa, if you please. Because I do admit while I'm not that familiar with them, I doubt you're anymore familiar with them than I am. Because even though the Ghana, Songhai and Mali Empire were relatively advanced for their time, they were certainly nothing special and still backwards compared to Europe, the Middle East and China.

Until you understand the basic point that one standard of advancement or evolution is not applicable to all, there's no point. You're judging cultures from an ocularcentric viewpoint. This is a fallacy on your behalf. The Western way of living is not the only way of living, and what one nation values may be deemed worthless by another. These are facts.

What movement are you talking about?

Liberal movement. It wasn't centralized until later on, but please search for pamphlets written in protest to the slave trade. There are thousands.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

@Mciahel Goodman - one of the more interesting essays I recall from a class in uni on European imperialism/colonialism was one that speculated on the history of colonies (it focused on Africa) had they waited until the later years of the 20th century to move for independence.

What it was speculating on was the "what if" of "what if the colonies had waited until significant improvements in infrastructure, education system, etc. had been put in place at the expense of their colonial rulers before moving toward independence... would they be in a better place than they are now?"

I ran across it on Jstor while doing some research and ended up reading it even though it didn't pertain to my research topic.

That might have been a smart move, but the urge for independence was too strong in the majority of cases to play such a prolonged, strategic game. It also relied on the benevolence of a non benevolent coloniser.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Songhai

What's interesting about the Songhai is that their most advanced cultural legacy is non-verbal. They'd be savages by your standards. They communicate via complex systems of whistling and noise -- each has the potential to thread many historical narratives together at once. More complex than any traditional European text, yet not recorded (except by a few ethnographers).

 

[Carolina Red]

That might have been a smart move, but the urge for independence was too strong in the majority of cases to play such a prolonged, strategic game. It also relied on the benevolence of a non benevolent coloniser.

The naturally curious (and selfish) part of me wishes that one of them had tried it... though I understand why they didn't.

 

[Carolina Red]

What's interesting about the Songhai is that their most advanced cultural legacy is non-verbal. They'd be savages by your standards. They communicate via complex systems of whistling and noise -- each has the potential to thread many historical narratives together at once. More complex than any traditional European text, yet not recorded (except by a few ethnographers).

Reminds me of the Aborigines and their use of song.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Words

First up: Under no circumstances have I even gone anywhere near even a vague suggestion that the poster is a "Misguided racist". What the hell are you talking about?

I also understand the principle of white privilege. It's still a ridiculous term. It instantly creates battle lines where there need not be any.

Just over a year ago I got called into HR. I was asked to justify the make up of a project team. The project was due to run for 6 weeks and I had brought in 3 contractors to code something out. The HR manager (Black, straight, female) said that I needed to ensure that all future teams 'Accurately represented the diversity of the company'. I'd hired 2 Chinese males and one Malaysian female. The second Chinese guy was a friend of the first who we got without an agency so saved a packet. This is the nonsense that I speak about. I laughed, told her to bring it up with a Director and speak to me again afterwards. We never spoke of it again.

In my world, my life, we're there. We're in the promised land. I've been told by a black woman that hiring two Chinese males and a Malaysian female for 4-6 weeks is not meeting diversity criteria. We've gone so far past the finish line that on the victory lap we're criticising each other for smiling too much.

This is the modern world that I inhabit. Anyone trying to tell me that they want to reduce me to 'Male. White' has some major issues. That's a phenomenally large backwards step.

When you write;

"Nobody's saying it's a secret society where you all sit around discussing how you'll divide up the wealth you've accumulated through oppression both historical and contemporary, it's probably not even something you can see unless you objectively look at it with purpose but there's no doubt it exists"

You just sound nutty. I'm not part of a people. It's not because I 'don't recognise it'. It's simply not there. Previous generations, sure. Other countries, of course.

People continue to be oppressed in myriad ways. Why the hell can't we just focus on that? Identify the actual people (not the arbitrary labelled demographics) that are doing wrong, hold them to account, then make a change. It's not hard.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Reminds me of the Aborigines and their use of song.

The indigenous Ewe of Togo communicate via symbolic drums (Kagan, Kidi, Sogo). Each one has a distinct sound and appearance, but the sound of the drums is as much a language as English or Spanish. The people can interpret it and reply with similar or opposite sounds (the call and response).

These are all very advanced methods of communication that people are too quick to dismiss as backwards or as savagery. It's ignorance when one doesn't try to understand difference.

 

[SteveJ]

Africa benefited from colonialism much more than Europe did because of the introduction of modern day medicine, infrastructure, governing system - basically getting them out of the stone age. If it wasn't for colonialism, it's highly likely that Africa would be a bunch of primitive tribes right now that never saw an outside face.

Here's a thought: why couldn't we just let these people be? Why the assumption that our ways are best? I resent the smug notion that everything from our religions to our politics are superior; these should not be foisted upon those we deem to be lagging behind. Besides, no matter who's doing the colonising, there's always a heavy price to pay for the recipients.

 

[Moved To Differently]

First up: Under no circumstances have I even gone anywhere near even a vague suggestion that the poster is a "Misguided racist". What the hell are you talking about?

I also understand the principle of white privilege. It's still a ridiculous term. It instantly creates battle lines where there need not be any.

Just over a year ago I got called into HR. I was asked to justify the make up of a project team. The project was due to run for 6 weeks and I had brought in 3 contractors to code something out. The HR manager (Black, straight, female) said that I needed to ensure that all future teams 'Accurately represented the diversity of the company'. I'd hired 2 Chinese males and one Malaysian female. The second Chinese guy was a friend of the first who we got without an agency so saved a packet. This is the nonsense that I speak about. I laughed, told her to bring it up with a Director and speak to me again afterwards. We never spoke of it again.

Do you believe your HR manager to be competent?