Racism on display at University of Virginia

[All Englands Skies]

What do you call it when a Korean person is racist against someone? How about a Swedish person? How can you possibly tell the ethnic origins of someone and know their entire cultural history to determine who they are capable of being racist against? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Everyone is capable of being racist against anyone.

In such a bizarre theory a modern "White" French person and a "Black" Haitian cannot be racist towards each other, as they've "balanced the books" historically.

The French had Haitians as slaves and treated them as second class citizens, sometime murdering them, but that's been equalised by the Haitians carrying out a full on Genocide of the "White" French population on the Island after the Haitian revolution and wiping them out completely.

Also the Bosnia war of the 1990s, using the same logic, one can argue that the Serbians were "settling the score" for historic injustices.

 

[All Englands Skies]

What do you call it when a Korean person is racist against someone? How about a Swedish person? How can you possibly tell the ethnic origins of someone and know their entire cultural history to determine who they are capable of being racist against? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Everyone is capable of being racist against anyone.

double post

 

[Ana the Ist]

In such a bizarre theory a modern "White" French person and a "Black" Haitian cannot be racist towards each other, as they've "balanced the books" historically.

Sorry, thought you were Tom.

It's a ridiculous way to try and define a word. People can't possibly know the ethnic background of someone by looking at them, nor is it really reasonable to expect people to understand the entire history of an ethnic group.

It's just a silly rationalization some use to justify their own racism.

 

[Tom 1]

Here, in case you weren't aware....

Racism in South Korea - Wikipedia

An increase in immigration to South Koreasince the 2000s catalyzed more overt expressions of racism, as well as criticism of those expressions.[1][3] Newspapers have frequently reported on and criticized discrimination against immigrants, in forms such as being paid lower than the minimum wage, having their wages withheld, unsafe work conditions, physical abuse, or general denigration.[1]

In a 2010–2014 World Values Survey, 44.2% of South Koreans reported they would not want a foreigner as a neighbor.

What do you call that if not racism? Obviously it's not connected in any way to European colonialism.

Do you really need me to point out the difference between something that happens in Korea, and something that happens in the US? The idea that ‘people are racist anyway’ somehow negates the need to understand the dynamics of a particular context is false.

 

[All Englands Skies]

Sorry, thought you were Tom.

I guessed that, due to the back and forth you have going with him.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Do you really need me to point out the difference between something that happens in Korea, and something that happens in the US?.

The morality of a particular behavior doesn't change geographically. Murder is wrong here and it's wrong in Korea. The same goes for the morality of racism.

 

[Tom 1]

The morality of a particular behavior doesn't change geographically. Murder is wrong here and it's wrong in Korea. The same goes for the morality of racism.

Sure but this thread isn’t about something that happened in Korea.

 

[All Englands Skies]

Sure but this thread isn’t about something that happened in Korea.

Its also not about every historic justice of the past 500 years, its about a girl, wanting white people to leave a multicultural centre simple for being white.

I hate Capitalism and the system it represents with a passion, that does not mean I want to single out any person from a perceived "Rich/wealthy background" and exclude them from certain areas, if anything, that would do more to damage my cause.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sure but this thread isn’t about something that happened in Korea.

So you agree Koreans can be racist....despite not having any history of colonialism?

I guess it's not the history of a people that matters then....it's the act/behavior they're committing.

 

[Tom 1]

So you agree Koreans can be racist....despite not having any history of colonialism?

I guess it's not the history of a people that matters then....it's the act/behavior they're committing.

Yes, as per earlier posts things that happen lead on to other things happening = history.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, as per earlier posts things that happen lead on to other things happening = history.

If you're concerned about racism leading to other bad behavior...then why are you making excuses for this girl's racism?

 

[Tom 1]

If you're concerned about racism leading to other bad behavior...then why are you making excuses for this girl's racism?

The whole 'outrage' over this kind of petty nonsense is a bit ridiculous. If you fall down a slope and break your leg, you're not going to stress about the scratch on your finger. It seems strange that the US refuses to deal with its own history, not even teaching the history of slavery as a standard part of the school curriculum. That doesn't seem strange to you? A country that can end up voting in someone like Trump clearly has issues, and dealing openly and honestly with its own history and the ongoing affects of that would be one way for North America to mature so that it can continue to lead the world, rather than looking to its own narrow interests, or trying to pretend that situations like the one in this vid are somehow on a par with the much more consequential affects of racism in society. Institutionalised racism isn't obvious in Europe either, but it's still there.

 

[rjs330]

That kind of basic thinking is far more of a problem than some young girl saying there should be more cultures in a multi-cultural meeting.

Actually it's your kind of thinking that continually perpetuates the divide between people.

And to downplay her racist attitude is certainly part of the problem. As long as i am able to hold a racist attitude and then have people excuse it then nothing can be repaired. The Jews learned that and so have the Irish. It's time for the rest of us to do the same.

 

[rjs330]

And we’re back to the beginning...The whole history of colonialism is rooted in the idea that white Europeans have the right to take whatever they want from other ethnic groups, and to use or dispose of those other groups however they see fit. To say that has nothing to do with racism is like saying that the rain has nothing to do with plants growing.

You do realize that the spanish are not white europeans right? Neither are the Mexicans. They both took whatever they wanted as well. So don't jump on the high horse of it's all about the whites. The Indians had slaves and so did the Africans.

Secondly there is no excuse for this girl or any black to be racist today regardless of the past. It's time to let it go. Especially when you weren't part of that.

 

[rjs330]

From your dictionary definition, this I presume you think has nothing to do with colonialism?

‘...usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others’

Note the word "usually" in that definition. The part of the definition the one the girl expresses.

hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

She doesn't like white people. She prejudiced.

Definition of RACISM

 

[ThatRobGuy]

20 years after they were rounded up and exterminated by the government....I wouldn't be asking that.

Do you think a 20 year old Jewish person would be justified in feeling that way about Germany today? Because I don't.

No, but then again, the particular government responsible for that mistreatment was overthrown militarily by outside forces, and faced trial and were punished by a tribunal.

When the civil rights legislation was passed, it was only a "moving forward effort", and people weren't punished for their misdeeds, and most (if not all) of those former segregationists kept their positions of power, and presumably continued being racists and letting that impact how they did their job, they just couldn't be as nonchalant and open about it.

For instance, if the local police chief was a pro-segregationist racist prior to civil rights legislation, it'd be silly to assume that he magically dropped all of his racist baggage and ordered his employees to be even-handed and tolerant moving forward.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It had an affect on people of that day, but not this day. There is no reason why segregation laws of half a century ago should still have a negative impact on people today

If the OECD data is correct, and I see no reason to doubt it, if a person is put into a position of poverty, it takes 5 generations to recover from that in terms of economic mobility.

We can agree that racist policies of the past did that to the black community...

Even if from the moment the civil rights legislation was passed, everyone wholeheartedly embraced it and stopped all forms of racism (which is a pipe dream, that certainly didn't happen), it would take 5 generations to economically recover from that.

It's not a hard concept to understand...
If my family made policies that robbed your family of property, refused to hire your family, and impoverished your family and made laws that targeted your family and created numerous single parent homes. And then one days "okay, clean slate, moving forward we're not gonna do that stuff anymore", it's going to take a few generations for your family to be able to catch up.

All racial aspects aside, and just speaking to poverty in general, there's a reason why, in terms of economic mobility, 80% of people end up in the same economic bracket as their parents, and only 10% experience upward mobility.

Apart from a few outlier circumstances, the US is very much a "you need to have money to make money" sort of society. There are a few rags to riches stories out there, but that's certainly not the norm. In most cases, if you're parents are poor, your options are far more limited than that of a kid who's parents have money.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I get that you do hold black people as less morally culpable for racism. I get that you believe there are valid reasons to do so.

Do you think that you should though? If the goal is equality....the idea that race shouldn't matter and everyone is equal....shouldn't you hold them as accountable for their actions as you would a white person?

When people hold a double standard like this, it comes off as if they really do believe that there are legitimate differences between races and it's ok to generalize about them.

A 100% absolutist "equality moving forward" isn't really equality if one side is starting at a tremendous disadvantage. Equal opportunity means both parties start the race at the same starting line.

In the past, I've used the analogy of a boxing match.

If we were in a boxing match, and for the first 3 rounds, not only did the ref let me cheat, but encouraged it, and did everything in his power to try to cheat you (make you fight with a blindfold and tied one hand behind your back), and I absolutely pummeled you for those first 3 rounds...

Then, between rounds 3 and 4, they had a change of heart, and decided that was wrong, and said "no more cheating moving forward, starting in round 4, everything will be Even-Steven", but then did absolutely nothing (or close to nothing) to counterbalance what had previously happened, but still had the expectation that 'you still have to try to win this thing', you're going to have a very rough time coming back from that without having to employ some sketchy tactics of your own.


That's basically what's happening.

The "okay, from now on, everything is equal moving forward" isn't really equality. It's an attempt to enforce "selective fairness" after one side is already at an extreme disadvantage.

Sorta like letting a bank robber keep all of his ill gotten earnings (and not have to make restitution) as long as they promise not to steal again.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, but then again, the particular government responsible for that mistreatment was overthrown militarily by outside forces, and faced trial and were punished by a tribunal.

When the civil rights legislation was passed, it was only a "moving forward effort", and people weren't punished for their misdeeds, and most (if not all) of those former segregationists kept their positions of power, and presumably continued being racists and letting that impact how they did their job, they just couldn't be as nonchalant and open about it.

For instance, if the local police chief was a pro-segregationist racist prior to civil rights legislation, it'd be silly to assume that he magically dropped all of his racist baggage and ordered his employees to be even-handed and tolerant moving forward.

Sure...but as far as punishment goes, we can't exactly punish someone for following the law. Being required to use a different restroom....even one far worse than others....isn't exactly the same as being rounded up, worked to death, then gassed.

It's not as if segregationist politicians were voting against the will of the people they represented either.

 

[Ana the Ist]

A 100% absolutist "equality moving forward" isn't really equality if one side is starting at a tremendous disadvantage. Equal opportunity means both parties start the race at the same starting line.

What is this "tremendous disadvantage" that you think exists?

In the past, I've used the analogy of a boxing match.

If we were in a boxing match, and for the first 3 rounds, not only did the ref let me cheat, but encouraged it, and did everything in his power to try to cheat you (make you fight with a blindfold and tied one hand behind your back), and I absolutely pummeled you for those first 3 rounds...

Then, between rounds 3 and 4, they had a change of heart, and decided that was wrong, and said "no more cheating moving forward, starting in round 4, everything will be Even-Steven", but then did absolutely nothing (or close to nothing) to counterbalance what had previously happened, but still had the expectation that 'you still have to try to win this thing', you're going to have a very rough time coming back from that without having to employ some sketchy tactics of your own.


That's basically what's happening.

I'll tell you why this is an awful way of looking at things. If it's a boxing match, why should I ever seek to even things out? Shouldn't I do everything I can to benefit my boxer because it benefits me? Isn't my ultimate goal to beat the other guy unconscious?

It's not a competition between white and black.

The "okay, from now on, everything is equal moving forward" isn't really equality. It's an attempt to enforce "selective fairness" after one side is already at an extreme disadvantage.

Sorta like letting a bank robber keep all of his ill gotten earnings (and not have to make restitution) as long as they promise not to steal again.

If a someone robbed by grandfather and the money was never recovered....would I be justified in hitting up his grandchildren for the money stolen?