4 ms·

> This “war” has been going on for centuries. The difference is that white men were totally dominating it until recent times, and a lot of them really don’t lik

by arkh 9y ago

> This “war” has been going on for centuries. The difference is that white men were totally dominating it until recent times, and a lot of them really don’t like that they may need to adapt behavior. African Americans had a right side of the street to walk on within the last 2 generations, for risk of being lynched. You better believe they’ve been parsing every word out of their mouths, not for fear of being labeled a mean word, but for fear of being killed, or having their families killed. That's US-centric. Until a century ago the majority of humans did not have a lot of freedom. Living under some autocratic ruler. The skin color or gender was irrelevant: only who you were the child of. A Chinese noblewoman had a lot more freedom than a English farmer.

mlevental 9y ago
what is your point? that in the rest of the world racism wasn't a thing or that racism is actually classicism? both of these things aren't true
- pgeorgi 9y ago
  > what is your point? Well, "That's US-centric". Racism doesn't even translate well to other countries today: not every country has the situation that a significant part of the population has ancestors that were relocated by force and had to work as slaves in recent history, and are easily distinguishable by skin color ("race"). Different countries, different problems. Hence, different delineations in the various culture wars all over the world.
SiempreViernes 9y ago
> A Chinese noblewoman had a lot more freedom than a English farmer. You'll have to specify that better; for instance, is the farmer a landowner, or a serf? Both work in agriculture and can so rightly be termed a farmer.
aaron-lebo 9y ago
To some extent. By 1500 the Spanish were in the Americas, the European powers were forming colonies on the African coast, the Russians were dominating Siberia. By 1900 European powers dominated almost everything, including China who were bulled into war by the British. If you were a subject of any of those colonial powers, you certainly were at a disadvantage to your foreign masters. This isn't even considering gender. Out of all of those empires, how many were led by women? There were exceptions here and there, but men dominated. It's not US centric nor incorrect by any means to suggest that Caucasian males have had significant advantages in social relations for an extended period of time. rate limited, but to reply: Read Caucasian as white or European and don't get stuck on semantics. Germany only very recently favored this race (or another vague term, "Aryan") more than anyone else in history, so most people know what it means, the semantics are a digression and not an answer to what has happened historically. Also, this isn't guilt tripping nor "hating" on my ancestors, it is pointing out obvious facts. Many of us are products of this domination and have connections to both sides.
- pgeorgi 9y ago
  "Caucasian" is a category that's or or less unknown in Germany, so "caucasian males" having advantages (or disadvantages) doesn't mean anything to us. That range of your categorization is much more nuanced around here. OTOH the US seems to have tons of categories that are simply called "Asian" here. That's a big part in making that conversation US centric.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

by arkh 9y ago

mlevental 9y ago

what is your point? that in the rest of the world racism wasn't a thing or that racism is actually classicism? both of these things aren't true

pgeorgi 9y ago
> what is your point? Well, "That's US-centric". Racism doesn't even translate well to other countries today: not every country has the situation that a significant part of the population has ancestors that were relocated by force and had to work as slaves in recent history, and are easily distinguishable by skin color ("race"). Different countries, different problems. Hence, different delineations in the various culture wars all over the world.

SiempreViernes 9y ago

> A Chinese noblewoman had a lot more freedom than a English farmer. You'll have to specify that better; for instance, is the farmer a landowner, or a serf? Both work in agriculture and can so rightly be termed a farmer.

aaron-lebo 9y ago

To some extent. By 1500 the Spanish were in the Americas, the European powers were forming colonies on the African coast, the Russians were dominating Siberia. By 1900 European powers dominated almost everything, including China who were bulled into war by the British. If you were a subject of any of those colonial powers, you certainly were at a disadvantage to your foreign masters. This isn't even considering gender. Out of all of those empires, how many were led by women? There were exceptions here and there, but men dominated. It's not US centric nor incorrect by any means to suggest that Caucasian males have had significant advantages in social relations for an extended period of time. rate limited, but to reply: Read Caucasian as white or European and don't get stuck on semantics. Germany only very recently favored this race (or another vague term, "Aryan") more than anyone else in history, so most people know what it means, the semantics are a digression and not an answer to what has happened historically. Also, this isn't guilt tripping nor "hating" on my ancestors, it is pointing out obvious facts. Many of us are products of this domination and have connections to both sides.

pgeorgi 9y ago
"Caucasian" is a category that's or or less unknown in Germany, so "caucasian males" having advantages (or disadvantages) doesn't mean anything to us. That range of your categorization is much more nuanced around here. OTOH the US seems to have tons of categories that are simply called "Asian" here. That's a big part in making that conversation US centric.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]