4 ms·

Yeah doesn't make much sense right? Some people think that affirmative action isn't racist. But tell me what it is when you think like: "hey we have enough as

Yeah doesn't make much sense right? Some people think that affirmative action isn't racist. But tell me what it is when you think like: "hey we have enough asians, exclude that person, let's find a black to get our quota" Some people will defend it like a user said below: "By engaging in deliberate anti-racism efforts to counteract subconscious racism." But what is "anti-racism"? It's being racist in the opposite direction. You think Y group is being oppressed "subconciously" so you oppress X group as much as you think you need to, to "even" it out. We should strive for equal opportunities, not equal outcomes.

wpietri 4y ago
[flagged]
- MrOwnPut 4y ago
  > Anti-racism seeks to end that system. Explain how you apply "anti-racism" please. If you're excluding people based on their skin color or origins, that is racism, even if they are white or asian. > Everybody agrees that the US was hugely racist to start out and for centuries thereafter. Speak for yourself, not everybody. If anything we were the colony to finally collapse the system after many centuries of it being standard across the world. It's kind of a slap in the face for all those people who fought to end it.
  - whynaut 4y ago
    It's a bit disingenuous to defend people who ended it while simultaneously pretending it never happened.
    - MrOwnPut 4y ago
      Where did I say it never happened? It's a bit disingenuous to put words in my mouth.
      - hgsgm 4y ago
        You replied in disagreement to > > Everybody agrees that the US was hugely racist to start out and for centuries thereafter. But your bio says you are a deliberate troll, so presumably you knew that.
        MrOwnPut 4y ago
        So you think me not agreeing the US "was hugely racist" is the same as me saying slavery never happened? You don't think it's me saying that the US was part of a system that had existed long before it was even a country, even though I said just that? BTW my bio is a homage to Socrates being persecuted for asking questions and going against the mob.
        whynaut 4y ago
        That's like saying murder isn't heinously evil, because murder has existed long before you or I.
        MrOwnPut 4y ago
        You've done nothing but ignore my words, misinterpret my bio, put words in my mouth, and spout off poor analogies. I think we're done conversing, if you could even call it that.
        whynaut 4y ago
        Sad, I’d love to hear all about how ‘poor’ my analogy was.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    Your theory is that, for example, turning people into property based on race was not racist? If so, I don't think there's much point in a discussion here. For those more reasonable who want to know about what anti-racism is opposed to, I'd suggest reading Loewen's Sundown Towns, Kendi's Stamped from the Beginning, and Mills's The Racial Contract as beginner-friendly looks at the system of racism, its historical and intellectual roots, and how it all played out historically.
    - MrOwnPut 4y ago
      Did I say that? Reply to what I say, not words you create. The system was created long before the US. Many people were involved in this system, from the warring tribes in Africa selling prisoners, to countries like the UK setting up colonies with slaves for cotton, tobacco, etc. We were the colony that finally stopped the system. It took a long time and a lot of blood because it was the system, but it was ended.
      - wpietri 4y ago
        If your point is that the US didn't invent racism, I agree. Again, read Kendi, who traces its roots back pretty well. But that doesn't mean the US wasn't hugely racist both during its colonial period and long after. And again, if that's something that you can't see, I'm not sure what the point of further discussion is.
    - annyeonghada 4y ago
      >Kendi Maybe try suggesting some serious historical scholarship instead of ideologues.
      - wpietri 4y ago
        Oh? What books would you recommend here?
        wpietri 4y ago
        Still waiting!
  - Jensson 4y ago
    > Speak for yourself, not everybody. If anything we were the colony to finally collapse the system after many centuries of it being standard across the world. USA was very late ending slavery, most European countries had already outlawed it long before the American civil war. USA was the colony that required a war to stop treating people like cattle, that is its history.
    - MrOwnPut 4y ago
      I wouldn't say "long" before. They did before, but they were also the ones who created those colonies with slaves in the first place. They were also buying those slave made goods, continuing the triangle, even well after they abolished it in their homeland. So yes, they may have "ended" it at home, but they basically just outsourced their slavery to colonies they had setup.
      - Jensson 4y ago
        > So yes, they may have "ended" it at home, but they basically just outsourced their slavery to colonies. This isn't true, if the American revolution hadn't happened then those slaves would have been freed peacefully already by 1833: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833 Or maybe that would have triggered an American revolution again because Americans love their slaves, I mean it happened that way as is...
        MrOwnPut 4y ago
        UK abolished slavery for themselves 30 years prior to the US abolishing it, mainly because their sugar plantations had lost their worth. But the UK still continued to buy US cotton, knowing full well it was enabling the slave trade to continue. And the most important point was they had setup all of these colonies with these systems in the first place.
        Jensson 4y ago
        You said this: > we were the colony to finally collapse the system after many centuries of it being standard across the world. That is blatantly false. That was my point. You are right the Europeans weren't angels, but you were absolutely wrong there, America was the colony that was dragged kicking and screaming to abolish slavery long after everyone else had already done so, it absolutely wasn't the colony that finally collapsed the system of slavery it was pushed by everyone else to end it and then still had to go through a civil war doing it.
- gameman144 4y ago
  > Racism is a societal system where one race is systemically (and often systematically) elevated over others. This is a definition of racism, and the one currently in vogue, but just want to point out that it's not the only one. Racism can also denote individually held prejudices, or isolated discrimination based on race. > Anti-racism seeks to end that system. This is indeed the stated goal, but (at least to me) seems to be self-defeatist. For instance, when reading through Ibram X Kendi's work, a number of ideas that seem flat-out wrong popped out: * Racism against a group in power can't exist (because the redefined version of racism requires group power), as if racial power exists in a monolith. * The only cure for past discrimination is present discrimination. (!) * Thedesire for race neutrality is racist (not just its flawed applications) * The idea that biology influences behavior is racist (not just the standard racist claims that some groups are inferior biologically) I realize that these terms can mean a lot of things to a lot of people, but the above ideas of "anti-racism" definitely lead to more stifling of discussion and outright acceptance of discrimination than I've otherwise experienced.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    > This is a definition of racism It is the one anti-racists are using, so if one is trying to understand the term, that's the right place to start. I get that people disagree both on whether it should be ended and if so, what the right tactics are. My goal here is not to have that incredibly deep and nuanced conversation, but just to clear up this particular point.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - gameman144 4y ago
      > It is the one anti-racists are using, so if one is trying to understand the term, that's the right place to start. Yeah totally agreed, it's important to call out the definitions of terms used in any context. The main thrust of my post was similarly to point out that if you're using definition X, you may justify some action which doesn't conform to definition Y. In the same vein as "Patriot Act" or "People's Republic", good branding on the part of "anti-racism" can help nip naysayers in the bud. (Are you anti-patriot? Are you against the people or democracy? Are you pro-racist?) Knowing who means what when they use terms, and being willing to differ from someone else's definition clearly, is pretty much the only way I know of to have these deep conversations with civility.
- xigoi 4y ago
  > what is the precise date where you think the last traces were destroyed? How many grains of sand does it take to form a big pile?

wpietri 4y ago

[flagged]

MrOwnPut 4y ago
> Anti-racism seeks to end that system. Explain how you apply "anti-racism" please. If you're excluding people based on their skin color or origins, that is racism, even if they are white or asian. > Everybody agrees that the US was hugely racist to start out and for centuries thereafter. Speak for yourself, not everybody. If anything we were the colony to finally collapse the system after many centuries of it being standard across the world. It's kind of a slap in the face for all those people who fought to end it.
- whynaut 4y ago
  It's a bit disingenuous to defend people who ended it while simultaneously pretending it never happened.
  - MrOwnPut 4y ago
    Where did I say it never happened? It's a bit disingenuous to put words in my mouth.
    - hgsgm 4y ago
      You replied in disagreement to > > Everybody agrees that the US was hugely racist to start out and for centuries thereafter. But your bio says you are a deliberate troll, so presumably you knew that.
      - MrOwnPut 4y ago
        So you think me not agreeing the US "was hugely racist" is the same as me saying slavery never happened? You don't think it's me saying that the US was part of a system that had existed long before it was even a country, even though I said just that? BTW my bio is a homage to Socrates being persecuted for asking questions and going against the mob.
        whynaut 4y ago
        That's like saying murder isn't heinously evil, because murder has existed long before you or I.
        MrOwnPut 4y ago
        You've done nothing but ignore my words, misinterpret my bio, put words in my mouth, and spout off poor analogies. I think we're done conversing, if you could even call it that.
        whynaut 4y ago
        Sad, I’d love to hear all about how ‘poor’ my analogy was.
- wpietri 4y ago
  Your theory is that, for example, turning people into property based on race was not racist? If so, I don't think there's much point in a discussion here. For those more reasonable who want to know about what anti-racism is opposed to, I'd suggest reading Loewen's Sundown Towns, Kendi's Stamped from the Beginning, and Mills's The Racial Contract as beginner-friendly looks at the system of racism, its historical and intellectual roots, and how it all played out historically.
  - MrOwnPut 4y ago
    Did I say that? Reply to what I say, not words you create. The system was created long before the US. Many people were involved in this system, from the warring tribes in Africa selling prisoners, to countries like the UK setting up colonies with slaves for cotton, tobacco, etc. We were the colony that finally stopped the system. It took a long time and a lot of blood because it was the system, but it was ended.
    - wpietri 4y ago
      If your point is that the US didn't invent racism, I agree. Again, read Kendi, who traces its roots back pretty well. But that doesn't mean the US wasn't hugely racist both during its colonial period and long after. And again, if that's something that you can't see, I'm not sure what the point of further discussion is.
  - annyeonghada 4y ago
    >Kendi Maybe try suggesting some serious historical scholarship instead of ideologues.
    - wpietri 4y ago
      Oh? What books would you recommend here?
      - wpietri 4y ago
        Still waiting!
- Jensson 4y ago
  > Speak for yourself, not everybody. If anything we were the colony to finally collapse the system after many centuries of it being standard across the world. USA was very late ending slavery, most European countries had already outlawed it long before the American civil war. USA was the colony that required a war to stop treating people like cattle, that is its history.
  - MrOwnPut 4y ago
    I wouldn't say "long" before. They did before, but they were also the ones who created those colonies with slaves in the first place. They were also buying those slave made goods, continuing the triangle, even well after they abolished it in their homeland. So yes, they may have "ended" it at home, but they basically just outsourced their slavery to colonies they had setup.
    - Jensson 4y ago
      > So yes, they may have "ended" it at home, but they basically just outsourced their slavery to colonies. This isn't true, if the American revolution hadn't happened then those slaves would have been freed peacefully already by 1833: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833 Or maybe that would have triggered an American revolution again because Americans love their slaves, I mean it happened that way as is...
      - MrOwnPut 4y ago
        UK abolished slavery for themselves 30 years prior to the US abolishing it, mainly because their sugar plantations had lost their worth. But the UK still continued to buy US cotton, knowing full well it was enabling the slave trade to continue. And the most important point was they had setup all of these colonies with these systems in the first place.
        Jensson 4y ago
        You said this: > we were the colony to finally collapse the system after many centuries of it being standard across the world. That is blatantly false. That was my point. You are right the Europeans weren't angels, but you were absolutely wrong there, America was the colony that was dragged kicking and screaming to abolish slavery long after everyone else had already done so, it absolutely wasn't the colony that finally collapsed the system of slavery it was pushed by everyone else to end it and then still had to go through a civil war doing it.
gameman144 4y ago
> Racism is a societal system where one race is systemically (and often systematically) elevated over others. This is a definition of racism, and the one currently in vogue, but just want to point out that it's not the only one. Racism can also denote individually held prejudices, or isolated discrimination based on race. > Anti-racism seeks to end that system. This is indeed the stated goal, but (at least to me) seems to be self-defeatist. For instance, when reading through Ibram X Kendi's work, a number of ideas that seem flat-out wrong popped out: * Racism against a group in power can't exist (because the redefined version of racism requires group power), as if racial power exists in a monolith. * The only cure for past discrimination is present discrimination. (!) * Thedesire for race neutrality is racist (not just its flawed applications) * The idea that biology influences behavior is racist (not just the standard racist claims that some groups are inferior biologically) I realize that these terms can mean a lot of things to a lot of people, but the above ideas of "anti-racism" definitely lead to more stifling of discussion and outright acceptance of discrimination than I've otherwise experienced.
- wpietri 4y ago
  > This is a definition of racism It is the one anti-racists are using, so if one is trying to understand the term, that's the right place to start. I get that people disagree both on whether it should be ended and if so, what the right tactics are. My goal here is not to have that incredibly deep and nuanced conversation, but just to clear up this particular point.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - gameman144 4y ago
    > It is the one anti-racists are using, so if one is trying to understand the term, that's the right place to start. Yeah totally agreed, it's important to call out the definitions of terms used in any context. The main thrust of my post was similarly to point out that if you're using definition X, you may justify some action which doesn't conform to definition Y. In the same vein as "Patriot Act" or "People's Republic", good branding on the part of "anti-racism" can help nip naysayers in the bud. (Are you anti-patriot? Are you against the people or democracy? Are you pro-racist?) Knowing who means what when they use terms, and being willing to differ from someone else's definition clearly, is pretty much the only way I know of to have these deep conversations with civility.
xigoi 4y ago
> what is the precise date where you think the last traces were destroyed? How many grains of sand does it take to form a big pile?