4 ms·

As a latino, I can tell you what type of racism I have faced in the east coast, for example: - While chatting on the phone with a friend in Spanish, I get peop

As a latino, I can tell you what type of racism I have faced in the east coast, for example: - While chatting on the phone with a friend in Spanish, I get people screaming at me: "Speak English! This is America, go back to your country!!. ......" - "Chinga tu madre!! Mexican!" (I'm not Mexican) - "We dont speak Spanish here, sorry..." even tho I can communicate perfectly well in English. and many more, in my personal experience, the west coast is way better regarding racism, I have Pakistani friends who have had a pretty rough time living in Oklahoma. I agree that racism is being using as a political weapon, and all of that, but is truly more common in some places. If you are a white European, you will have a hard time seeing racism, compared with people who are not white.

dariusj18 5y ago
I find it strange the phrase "political weapon". As if the idea that there might be an issue in the country and politicians wanting to do something about it makes it a weapon. "Oh no Mr. Smith, your not allowed to mention the things that are wrong, otherwise people might think your using it to point out the flaws in your opposition."
- colpabar 5y ago
  I think "political tool" is a better term, and I believe it's an incredibly effective tool for dividing people who might otherwise be united on certain issues. I think that after the 2008 financial crisis and the following bailouts for the people who caused it, a lot of people got fed up, and occupy wall street was born. Occupy was a class based movement: the ultra-rich vs everyone else. And then something happened, and suddenly everyone had to be divided by every other attribute imaginable - race, sex, gender, disability - class just wasn't as important. Instead of the 1% vs the 99%, the 99% was divided by all those attributes and fought each other over whose issues were more important. Then it quietly fizzled out and nothing was accomplished. The 1% must be so happy watching the 99% squabble amongst themselves over who's the most oppressed. I think that most, if not all, of the major political/social issues today should be viewed through a class-based lens _first_; everything else should come second. But the users of this tool cannot have that, and here we are: everything is about race/sex/gender and nothing is about class.
  - dariusj18 5y ago
    My guess is that the Occupy movement was one of the first things that got you into politics, otherwise I don't know how else to explain your opinion. Identity politics was around way before the Occupy movement and has been one of the greatest driving forces in progressive social change.
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      Yeah, but colbapar has a bit of a point: Identity was there, but it wasn't quite so all-consuming of an issue. But I think the timing is a bit off. I think Occupy had pretty much fizzled before identity exploded. I could be wrong - I'm not all that political, so I'm only a fringe observer of these things - but it seems to me that Occupy was pretty much over by 2013, and identity didn't really explode until 2016 or so.
      - dariusj18 5y ago
        > identity didn't really explode until 2016 or so what? So feminisms just didn't exist until 2016? Rush Limbaugh didn't constantly use the term Feminazi in the early 90s? The gay rights movement didn't just start, it's been going for half a century. It's arguable that modern identity politics really began after Civil rights and the mad dash of Dixiecrats to the Republican party afterwards.
the_third_wave 5y ago
Is that racism? In that case I have been subjected to it many times even in my country of birth (the Netherlands) by speaking ABN ('algemeen beschaafd Nederlands', meaning not a local dialect but the type of Dutch spoken by the king or queen) in a place like Limburg (the southern-most province) where they tell me 'Ich spreck niet met hollanders!" (literally "I do not speak with people from the province of Holland" where "Holland" is meant to be understood as "not from the southern provinces") in an angry voice. I can understand the Limburg dialect since I speak German as well as Dutch and Limburgs lies somewhere in between (depending on which local variety, sometimes it seems more German than Dutch). This is only within a single tiny country, if I set my foot outside of it and make the mistake of starting to speak English in France I'd often only be met with feigned misunderstanding or foul looks by people who understand me perfectly well but consider their language an integral part of their identity and as such feel that others should make the effort to use it when communicating with Frenchmen. Were I to start in halting French we'd often end up speaking halting English without any bad feelings. Is that racism? No, it is not. It it a form of chauvinism, a way to mark people as not being part of their group. It is not racism since they do not react to my "race" (skin colour, facial features and whatever else is linked to "race") but to the way I speak. I could have spoken Limbursch or French and avoided their reaction. I can not change my race while I can change the way I speak if I so desire. > If you are a white European, you will have a hard time seeing racism, compared with people who are not white. That is a racist statement in and of itself, and you do not even know whether I'm a "white" European, let alone the fact that "white" means just as much as "black" when it comes to indicating the culture people grew up and live in. Since I can only assume you are not a racist I assume you made that statement because it is part of the current narrative - it is called standpoint epistemology [1], part of critical theory - without really giving it some thought. If you agree that racism is used as a political weapon it is only prudent to make sure you do not unwittingly make yourself become a part of that weapon. Yes, people tend to react differently to people depending on whether they are from their own group or from the outside, up to and including to telling them to "go back where they came from". This is said to Polish migrant workers in western Europe, to Palestinian migrants in Syria, to Koreans in Japan - in all cases you'll be hard-pressed to find any "racial" differences between the groups. It is chauvinism, nationalism, protectionism or just fear of being overrun by "the other". It is not racism and should not be called such, specifically for the reason you yourself mentioned: racism is being used as a political weapon. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standpoint_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standpoint_theory

dariusj18 5y ago

I find it strange the phrase "political weapon". As if the idea that there might be an issue in the country and politicians wanting to do something about it makes it a weapon. "Oh no Mr. Smith, your not allowed to mention the things that are wrong, otherwise people might think your using it to point out the flaws in your opposition."

colpabar 5y ago
I think "political tool" is a better term, and I believe it's an incredibly effective tool for dividing people who might otherwise be united on certain issues. I think that after the 2008 financial crisis and the following bailouts for the people who caused it, a lot of people got fed up, and occupy wall street was born. Occupy was a class based movement: the ultra-rich vs everyone else. And then something happened, and suddenly everyone had to be divided by every other attribute imaginable - race, sex, gender, disability - class just wasn't as important. Instead of the 1% vs the 99%, the 99% was divided by all those attributes and fought each other over whose issues were more important. Then it quietly fizzled out and nothing was accomplished. The 1% must be so happy watching the 99% squabble amongst themselves over who's the most oppressed. I think that most, if not all, of the major political/social issues today should be viewed through a class-based lens _first_; everything else should come second. But the users of this tool cannot have that, and here we are: everything is about race/sex/gender and nothing is about class.
- dariusj18 5y ago
  My guess is that the Occupy movement was one of the first things that got you into politics, otherwise I don't know how else to explain your opinion. Identity politics was around way before the Occupy movement and has been one of the greatest driving forces in progressive social change.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Yeah, but colbapar has a bit of a point: Identity was there, but it wasn't quite so all-consuming of an issue. But I think the timing is a bit off. I think Occupy had pretty much fizzled before identity exploded. I could be wrong - I'm not all that political, so I'm only a fringe observer of these things - but it seems to me that Occupy was pretty much over by 2013, and identity didn't really explode until 2016 or so.
    - dariusj18 5y ago
      > identity didn't really explode until 2016 or so what? So feminisms just didn't exist until 2016? Rush Limbaugh didn't constantly use the term Feminazi in the early 90s? The gay rights movement didn't just start, it's been going for half a century. It's arguable that modern identity politics really began after Civil rights and the mad dash of Dixiecrats to the Republican party afterwards.

the_third_wave 5y ago

Is that racism? In that case I have been subjected to it many times even in my country of birth (the Netherlands) by speaking ABN ('algemeen beschaafd Nederlands', meaning not a local dialect but the type of Dutch spoken by the king or queen) in a place like Limburg (the southern-most province) where they tell me 'Ich spreck niet met hollanders!" (literally "I do not speak with people from the province of Holland" where "Holland" is meant to be understood as "not from the southern provinces") in an angry voice. I can understand the Limburg dialect since I speak German as well as Dutch and Limburgs lies somewhere in between (depending on which local variety, sometimes it seems more German than Dutch). This is only within a single tiny country, if I set my foot outside of it and make the mistake of starting to speak English in France I'd often only be met with feigned misunderstanding or foul looks by people who understand me perfectly well but consider their language an integral part of their identity and as such feel that others should make the effort to use it when communicating with Frenchmen. Were I to start in halting French we'd often end up speaking halting English without any bad feelings. Is that racism? No, it is not. It it a form of chauvinism, a way to mark people as not being part of their group. It is not racism since they do not react to my "race" (skin colour, facial features and whatever else is linked to "race") but to the way I speak. I could have spoken Limbursch or French and avoided their reaction. I can not change my race while I can change the way I speak if I so desire. > If you are a white European, you will have a hard time seeing racism, compared with people who are not white. That is a racist statement in and of itself, and you do not even know whether I'm a "white" European, let alone the fact that "white" means just as much as "black" when it comes to indicating the culture people grew up and live in. Since I can only assume you are not a racist I assume you made that statement because it is part of the current narrative - it is called standpoint epistemology [1], part of critical theory - without really giving it some thought. If you agree that racism is used as a political weapon it is only prudent to make sure you do not unwittingly make yourself become a part of that weapon. Yes, people tend to react differently to people depending on whether they are from their own group or from the outside, up to and including to telling them to "go back where they came from". This is said to Polish migrant workers in western Europe, to Palestinian migrants in Syria, to Koreans in Japan - in all cases you'll be hard-pressed to find any "racial" differences between the groups. It is chauvinism, nationalism, protectionism or just fear of being overrun by "the other". It is not racism and should not be called such, specifically for the reason you yourself mentioned: racism is being used as a political weapon. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standpoint_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standpoint_theory