Ana the Ist
Aggressively serene!
Mmhm, and by that generalisation, the right already does talk about what goes on in other countries just plenty so......what's your point?
What's your point?
I never said they should.
Upvote
0
Mmhm, and by that generalisation, the right already does talk about what goes on in other countries just plenty so......what's your point?
No offense stevil....but you aren't from here...you don't know anything about it.
Again....you're not from here.
Noone on the left thinks USA is a white supremicist nation.
If America doesn't want the rest of the world looking at its business then you better shut up shop on your news media, your exports and imports and all other ways you 'advertise' yourself abroad.
I mean, it's pretty obvious the US left does think the US is white supremacist.
It's also pretty obvious they're right.
The crazy thing Triumvirate is that people think I'm making it up. I appreciate your honesty in saying what you believe.
Yeah, it's not exactly uniform across the left, but it is definitely an opinion that's fairly well-represented in it.
You make it sound like I actually have this option.
You need to at least consider that you're told these things about the US because it's exactly what you want to see.
It's also pretty obvious they're right.
Maybe your Dad is smarter than you think? Older people tend to have more wisdom about these issues.
Given that you also seem to believe it....what do you mean by white supremacist?
It used to mean people who believe white people are superior and should control everything and all other people should be oppressed or removed. As such, it really only referred to a really small and very racist group of people.
Now, it's hard to get a definition from anyone. It seems to refer to basically everything Europeans did from 1500AD on as white supremacist. I've seen mathematics, logic, history, and really everything in society described as white supremacist.
So what do you mean by it?
It's not another country saying things about the US, it's the US itself..
Not explicitly believing or saying this does not stop someone from propping up white supremacism....
..because it's not just legal, it's attitudinal as well. Attitudes might not explicitly be racialised, but in how those attitudes bear out in society or how they impact other things, they can still reinforce the racialised outcomes of white supremacism.
'Law and order' might sound race-neutral, but it very often isn't applied that way, for example.
Our intelligence is roughly similar, though he is somewhat more conservative. However, he's not a medical expert and the things he says don't make sense, and I'm worried he will endanger himself and my family. And that's why I fail to see the wisdom in what he is saying. It doesn't seem wise at all, it seems quite foolish and risky.
Also, I'm not a young man. I'm 44 years old, a college graduate and well-read with alot of different life experiences. Far more than my father.
What does? Does racial representation matter?
What I'm saying is....does it matter if white people hold political power, or are in positions of legal authority, or wealth, or whatever...? Or can this "problem of white supremacy" only be solved by giving this "power" to non-whites?
I think the problem with my understanding of it is there's just law and order...in my view. A white person commits a murder...they get punished. A black person commits a murder ....they get punished.
If someone along the way treats them wrongly because they're racist....that's wrong....and we should try to stop them....but it's not the system itself. It's the racist person.
I think some have a tendency to regard racism as something necessarily conscious and intentional. The notion that it might be structural and unwitting is foreign to them.I'm just going to note at this point I personally have very little inclination to try and convince people that white supremacy is real. I will simply note that someone from a British family raised in a country that Britain historically colonised (and still owns a bit of it, in fact), there is a lot of needless defensiveness over being honest about one's country's own history.
I was raised in the school system of that ex-colony, and a good chunk of that history is the impact of the British empire on that country. There wasn't any hatred, or attacking, but it was frank, and it was truthful and it didn't shy away from acknowledging that this happened, and it still impacts life between those countries today. As someone who's been through that system, I have basically no animus or hostility to talking about these topics. In Britain today, it is the people who haven't been educated in their country's own history that are the most hostile to it.
And this is how I tend to look at this debate. The people who are most angry and defensive and upset at having to talk about these topics at all are almost always the ones who know least about their country's own history, or are least willing to face it, or haven't had to be on the receiving end of this kind of discrimination. I have little interest in wishing to convince such closed minds, hence my general disinterest in this for some sort of conversation.
I think some have a tendency to regard racism as something necessarily conscious and intentional. The notion that it might be structural and unwitting is foreign to them.