Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
American Dream » Wed Feb 10, 2016 4:28 pm wrote:Race is socially constructed for sure, but is not "real" in the thoughtless sense that most racists suggest. It does relate to skin tone, and racialization is an ascriptive process. The social construction involves most all of us: for example, if a person of a certain skin tone speaks this way instead of that way, a properly socialized person in North America will "know" what box to put them in
White nationalists and other such racists love to stoke the Us and Them dichotomy in various ways. It's not so cool to be seen as a goose stepping Nazi anymore so instead they may suggest that it's kinda ok to beat up on immigrants, that jews run the world, that islamic people should be suppressed or expelled because they are all terrorists, etc.
Class struggle is not a doctrine cooked up by the Frankfort School to undermine the supremacy of the "White Race". Instead, it is an inescapable part of our lives. It is factories closing and the rent going up. It is pollution increasing and global warming getting worse. The Rockefellers and the bankers are part of it, but they are mostly just the finger pointing at the moon, not the ultimate cause of all that is evil. Capital is a dynamic social relationship rather than a bad group of people, even though there are bad groups of people doing bad things, for sure.
An anti-racist, class struggle orientation is definitely compatible with critical thinking about State as institution, so beware of those who are quick to use straw men to pump up their bogus ideas regarding some sort of stark choice between State Tyranny and "Race Realism".
Most people who don't get the above are useful idiots and/or maybe leaders and organizers for fascist/racist/far right type causes who know quite well what they are doing, no matter what the reasons they are doing it for. In the guise of exposing evil conspiracies, instead they are perpetuating them.
jakell » 10 Feb 2016 23:59 wrote:Joe Hillshoist » Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:49 pm wrote:I'm not hedging on it. I am sure you will be unable to find one (or more) example(s) of the term "white race" being used to promote anything other than division to enable exploitation and conflict.
With one exception. People talking about the term "white race" as a thing, what it is, who uses it and why.
people may use the term 'innocently' not realising it is poisoning their minds ... well programming them anyway. You'll find when they do use it then itimmediately starts framing their worldviews and expression in nasty ways.
Seems we're agreed then... 'always' was a pretty long shot and best sidelined.
I think we can agree on 'mostly', taking into account that weighting I described. It seems we may be usefully moving on from terms having an inherent weight to them, and how it is careless or malign usage of them that is the problem (human fallability again). The problem being in not noticing the, sometimes barely noticeable, gap before we pile on our preconceptions.
Joe Hillshoist » Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:03 pm wrote:jakell » 10 Feb 2016 23:59 wrote:Joe Hillshoist » Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:49 pm wrote:I'm not hedging on it. I am sure you will be unable to find one (or more) example(s) of the term "white race" being used to promote anything other than division to enable exploitation and conflict.
With one exception. People talking about the term "white race" as a thing, what it is, who uses it and why.
people may use the term 'innocently' not realising it is poisoning their minds ... well programming them anyway. You'll find when they do use it then itimmediately starts framing their worldviews and expression in nasty ways.
Seems we're agreed then... 'always' was a pretty long shot and best sidelined.
I think we can agree on 'mostly', taking into account that weighting I described. It seems we may be usefully moving on from terms having an inherent weight to them, and how it is careless or malign usage of them that is the problem (human fallability again). The problem being in not noticing the, sometimes barely noticeable, gap before we pile on our preconceptions.
Well no always isn't a long shot.
Apart from people criticising the term 'white race' as a construct to enable division, exploitation and conflict for the benefit of an elite class of people the only use of the term is to enable division, exploitation and conflict. For the benefit of elites. that it is inherent weighting and the only time it doesn't apply is when the term gets used in the context of criticising it for its divisive race baiting qualities.
That is how it is.
if you or anyone else could find examples of the term that show it being used in another way that doesn't promote division, exploitation and conflict then you would have by now.
jakell » 11 Feb 2016 09:14 wrote:Joe Hillshoist » Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:03 pm wrote:jakell » 10 Feb 2016 23:59 wrote:Joe Hillshoist » Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:49 pm wrote:I'm not hedging on it. I am sure you will be unable to find one (or more) example(s) of the term "white race" being used to promote anything other than division to enable exploitation and conflict.
With one exception. People talking about the term "white race" as a thing, what it is, who uses it and why.
people may use the term 'innocently' not realising it is poisoning their minds ... well programming them anyway. You'll find when they do use it then itimmediately starts framing their worldviews and expression in nasty ways.
Seems we're agreed then... 'always' was a pretty long shot and best sidelined.
I think we can agree on 'mostly', taking into account that weighting I described. It seems we may be usefully moving on from terms having an inherent weight to them, and how it is careless or malign usage of them that is the problem (human fallability again). The problem being in not noticing the, sometimes barely noticeable, gap before we pile on our preconceptions.
Well no always isn't a long shot.
Apart from people criticising the term 'white race' as a construct to enable division, exploitation and conflict for the benefit of an elite class of people the only use of the term is to enable division, exploitation and conflict. For the benefit of elites. that it is inherent weighting and the only time it doesn't apply is when the term gets used in the context of criticising it for its divisive race baiting qualities.
That is how it is.
if you or anyone else could find examples of the term that show it being used in another way that doesn't promote division, exploitation and conflict then you would have by now.
You have already described circumstances where it is not (always) used to enable exploitation and conflict, so there's no need for me to go hunting for examples. Really though, those were are no brainer and wouldn't need either of us to make much effort.
I thought we'd agreed here though (on 'mostly') and don't see why you are revisiting this.
Sounder » 11 Feb 2016 00:25 wrote:It is a class war alright, as the chattering class shifts the blame away from world class fascist and racist social dissolution experts, and on to yet more victims of of their world reshaping crusade.
The White European power structure is maintained by subverting the aspirations of regular white people as well as those of any and all other races.
You know, because race and our social constructing of it distracts from the more salient class issues.
jakell » 11 Feb 2016 02:34 wrote:American Dream » Wed Feb 10, 2016 4:28 pm wrote:Race is socially constructed for sure, but is not "real" in the thoughtless sense that most racists suggest. It does relate to skin tone, and racialization is an ascriptive process. The social construction involves most all of us: for example, if a person of a certain skin tone speaks this way instead of that way, a properly socialized person in North America will "know" what box to put them in
White nationalists and other such racists love to stoke the Us and Them dichotomy in various ways. It's not so cool to be seen as a goose stepping Nazi anymore so instead they may suggest that it's kinda ok to beat up on immigrants, that jews run the world, that islamic people should be suppressed or expelled because they are all terrorists, etc.
Class struggle is not a doctrine cooked up by the Frankfort School to undermine the supremacy of the "White Race". Instead, it is an inescapable part of our lives. It is factories closing and the rent going up. It is pollution increasing and global warming getting worse. The Rockefellers and the bankers are part of it, but they are mostly just the finger pointing at the moon, not the ultimate cause of all that is evil. Capital is a dynamic social relationship rather than a bad group of people, even though there are bad groups of people doing bad things, for sure.
An anti-racist, class struggle orientation is definitely compatible with critical thinking about State as institution, so beware of those who are quick to use straw men to pump up their bogus ideas regarding some sort of stark choice between State Tyranny and "Race Realism".
Most people who don't get the above are useful idiots and/or maybe leaders and organizers for fascist/racist/far right type causes who know quite well what they are doing, no matter what the reasons they are doing it for. In the guise of exposing evil conspiracies, instead they are perpetuating them.
Congrats on producing a well thought out post.
The bolded bit caught my eye, are you saying that race is real in some other sense?
I know you've hinted at this, but this is a step beyond the usual 'race isn't real'. Probably a significant one.
Sounder » 12 Feb 2016 23:55 wrote:I could respond if I knew what you are talking about Joe.
backtoiam » Fri Feb 12, 2016 9:30 am wrote:I"m sick and tired of the "white people are guilty due to their genetics" meme. I get the point but it has become sickening. I didn't own no slaves and i'll be god damned if i'm willing to feel guilty for any "white folk" that did before I was even alive. Not to mention the fact that if we want to get all "statistical" about the matter, the vast majority of "white folk" never owned any slaves anyway. What a juvenile way to view the world....The fact that the meme is allowed to survive here is sickening and divisive.
Surely such larger topics can be discussed without anyone taking it personally.
Wombaticus Rex » 13 Feb 2016 00:54 wrote:
Getting statistical is always a good idea, especially since it tends to subvert both sides of most any argument. I don't think what Joe is advancing here is about individual guilt, so much as collective outcomes.
Users browsing this forum: DrEvil and 149 guests