Racism Part two

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Because attempting to define racism is exactly what we shouldn't be doing? Because we have done such a great job combating it up until now?

No because the way you have defined racism isn’t understandable to the vast majority of people.

Racists are generally speaking, under educated so expecting them to understand degree level sociological arguments isn’t practical

[dont_do_it_doug.]

1 minute ago, Rodders said:

context completely matters. White people in this country are a majority, in other countries they are a minority / not benefiting from looking like the chaps in charge so there's no rule about who can or can't be racists. 

I completely agree about systemic entrenched biases, and the consequences of empire loving attitudes ( not exclusive to any race / creed/ tribe ) that creates a dominant socio-economic environment, that's just basic history. But racism as most people understand it, is about the act of abusing / discriminating others based on that characteristic, and that happens irrespective of broader social conditions. You might create some kind of argument as to why non-dominant to dominant tribe racism is different, maybe, but it is a pointless abstract argument that does no favours, particularly to those individuals on the receiving end of the abuse. In the situation where a white person is abused, it would be aburd for them to respond, "oh well, I suppose that's the reasonable legacy I must put up with because of my collective ancestors" ( I'm not sure if you're saying that, but for me that's a logical endpoint of saying that there' 'cant be that kind of racism. 

I am certainly not talking about white guilt and I do think the debates around power structures are far more important than the knee jerk reaction which dictates "this person is saying something bad about white people so he/she must be considered racist". 

I'm interested in reading about some of theses social structures in which white people are the subjugated race. 

[chrisp65]

Just now, dont_do_it_doug. said:

The league table exists because... well it does. We have made it that way. White people have via centuries of oppression placed themselves at the top of the chain, we cannot ignore that fact whilst simultaneously combating the problem. 

The major problem with reverse-racism kicks in the minute you bring oppression and power structures into the debate. That is why, in my humble opinion here and I promise I ain't spoiling for a fight, a person of colour can use racist language against a white person but they cannot literally be racist. Because they hold no power in the relationship. We absolutely have to change that.  

Yep, this is pure discussion / debate because it's interesting and I'm open to ideas here.

How do you calculate if a Peruvian can be racist towards a Nepalese? Do you google up the national GDP figures before deciding? If I refuse to give jobs to Polish people or English people? Do you need to see a picture of me to know if I was being racist? 

I think presuming all non-whites are inferior in some way to all whites is a bit Victorian.

 

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

But Harry isn't, neither of his parents is from German stock 

Worryingly, I picture you having researched the Hewitt family tree.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

No because the way you have defined racism isn’t understandable to the vast majority of people.

Racists are generally speaking, under educated so expecting them to understand degree level sociological arguments isn’t practical

That's fair. I'd rather punch them tbh.

[peterms]

1 hour ago, terrytini said:

I am not at all sure why someone with a high tv/ radio profile would, if they were a racist, sit waiting for these circumstances to arise in order to make their views - obliquely- known. 

No-one has suggested he was waiting for an opportunity to express racism, nor that he was felt to be a racist and his employer was waiting for a pretext to catch him out.

It's just that his conduct in putting out that tweet was felt to be incompatible with his role as a presenter.   That seems a reasonable and defensible judgement,  and I can see why he is felt to be more of a "face" of the BBC than Sugar and therefore treated differently, like you treat permanent and casual staff differently.  And it's an employment issue,  not a crusade against all examples of racism, so who does it and their relation to the employer is as important as what is done.

Two points which I think haven't been made.

First, the content of his tweet after having been sacked, which I quoted earlier, seems the kind of thing which anyone I've ever worked for would see as gross misconduct and a sacking offence in its own right, compounding the original incident.  This is possibly why he seems to have been advised by someone with more common sense than himself, to back down and shut up.

Second, I can't help wondering if there is an element of deference in the BBC reaction and speed of response.  I wonder what they would have done if the mother had been, say, Diane Abbott.

 

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Racism requires the belief of superiority. With the power structures the way they are, white people are the dominant race. No matter how despicable we may find that, and I do.

A person of colour may have racist intentions, use racist language and be hateful towards white people, but they and you are mistaken for thinking that it is a racist act. It can't be because ultimately within the structures that exist they will always* be subjugated by the white man.

For the same reasons the matriarchy does not exist, reverse racism also cannot exist. 

*currently

I dispute what you say, there, Dave.

You're going to have to discuss parameters to even properly put forward your case.

In the same way that things can exist within a particular nation in a particular hemisphere, things can exist in a particular social group within a particular nation and so on.

I get the idea about understanding the general balance of power (especially in a historical context), and I'm on board with that, but I don't think you can go from there to where you have above.

Edit: I see that I'm coming to the discussion with you (Dave) a little late and that some of my points have been already responded to. I'm going to go back and read through everyone's comments before posting again.

Edited May 9, 2019 by snowychap

[dont_do_it_doug.]

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

Yep, this is pure discussion / debate because it's interesting and I'm open to ideas here.

How do you calculate if a Peruvian can be racist towards a Nepalese? Do you google up the national GDP figures before deciding? If I refuse to give jobs to Polish people or English people? Do you need to see a picture of me to know if I was being racist? 

For me it is as simple as who holds the power in this relationship, how did they attain it and how are they using it. It has nothing to do with capitalist nonsense like GPD, just power. Or perhaps more to the point, opportunity. I think nationalism is a different form of racism, it sorta-kinda transcends racism to the point the border itself becomes the racist aspect in the relationship. So you are right in that sense, a person of colour can make racist overtones towards a Pole. However I believe that ultimately the structure dictates that their belief in their own power is a falsehood, because when it comes to the crunch the white man will always take the side of the other white man, regardless of nationality.

Quote

I think presuming all non-whites are inferior in some way to all whites is a bit Victorian.

 I mean it definitely isn't me doing that, at least I hope not. I think and desire the exact opposite of that.  

[Ingram85]

21 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Again, nonsense. You haven't 'discovered' anything.

If you really think that 'It needs to stop. On all sides' then don't spin your own post of criticism around phrases like 'Patronising high horse' and 'woke' in such close conjunction.

All the best 

[dont_do_it_doug.]

8 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I dispute what you say, there, Dave.

You're going to have to discuss parameters to even properly put forward your case.

In the same way that things can exist within a particular nation in a particular hemisphere, things can exist in a particular social group within a particular nation and so on.

I get the idea about understanding the general balance of power (especially in a historical context), and I'm on board with that, but I don't think you can go from there to where you have above.

I don't believe those structures are as consigned to history as people want to believe, particularly white people. I'm not trying to be 'woke' about this, I think there is a genuine case to be made that the society we live in today is every bit as racist as it always has been.  

I'd be interested to know whether you, or anyone really, thought the Black Panthers were a racist organisation. They used language such as 'the white devil', yet to my mind their cause was just. To them, the white man WAS the devil when viewed through the prism of their oppression. 

Edited May 9, 2019 by dont_do_it_doug.

[Chindie]

Racism exists in all directions and in many forms.

It carries more weight in some. A white person using derogatory language against a black person carries more weight than the reverse, because of the context that comes with it - the white person is punching down, the black person punching up.

They are both wrong, but one is more egregious.

[snowychap]

46 minutes ago, bickster said:

People will never be equal with your approach

To be fair, they never will with an approach that doesn't take in to consideration the entire context of people's actions.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

20 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Racism exists in all directions and in many forms.

It carries more weight in some. A white person using derogatory language against a black person carries more weight than the reverse, because of the context that comes with it - the white person is punching down, the black person punching up.

They are both wrong, but one is more egregious.

Is punching up ever egregious? I find it incredibly difficult to motivate myself to call it out, anyway. That's the purview of people like Piers Morgan. 

Edit - not comparing you to Piers Morgan!

Edited May 9, 2019 by dont_do_it_doug.

[sharkyvilla]

He kind of blamed the racism aspect on not having a 'diseased mind' that associates monkeys with black people, but as a football fan the first association I have between black people and monkeys is purely racist and so should he.  Whether he should lose his job over it, I'm not sure.  

[snowychap]

17 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

I don't believe those structures are as consigned to history as people want to believe, particularly white people. I'm not trying to be 'woke' about this, I think there is a genuine case to be made that the society we live in today is every bit as racist as it always has been.  

I'd be interested to know whether you, or anyone really, thought the Black Panthers were a racist organisation. They used language such as 'the white devil', yet to my mind their cause was just. To them, the white man WAS the devil when viewed through the prism of their oppression. 

I don't think that I meant to suggest that things were consigned to history when I spoke about historical context - that was more about not excluding history from consideration when one is looking at the present.

I'm not in a position really to comment on the Black Panthers as my knowledge of them is little more than the standard historical overview.

'Just cause' is always the very top of a slippery slope.

 

13 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Racism exists in all directions and in many forms.

It carries more weight in some. A white person using derogatory language against a black person carries more weight than the reverse, because of the context that comes with it - the white person is punching down, the black person punching up.

They are both wrong, but one is more egregious.

Indeed.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

I don't think that I meant to suggest that things were consigned to history when I spoke about historical context - that was more about not excluding history from consideration when one is looking at the present.

I'm not in a position really to comment on the Black Panthers as my knowledge of them is little more than the standard historical overview.

'Just cause' is always the very top of a slippery slope.

It is, I know. But you were right when you said we need to consider context in it's entirety, or there's no point even trying to contextualise. I suppose I was just trying to make a point, that comments which when viewed context free could be construed as racist do not necessarily = racism.

[snowychap]

16 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Is punching up ever egregious?

Without wishing to answer for Chindie, I read it as the use of derogatory language was egregious per se and that using it to punch up was a magnification of the egregiousness.

[Chindie]

14 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Is punching up ever egregious? I find it incredibly difficult to motivate myself to call it out, anyway. That's the purview of people like Piers Morgan. 

Edit - not comparing you to Piers Morgan!

Punching is rarely not bad. Punching up isn't as bad as punching down, but neither is good.

I'm about as white as white gets in pretty much every way. Another race using derogatory racist language against me (which surprisingly has happened) cannot carry the impact that the reverse would (which for absolute clarity, I wouldn't do), but still is unpleasant, shouldn't be done and I'd rather they didn't.

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

In more practical terms, when you allow people the space to say that comments like Romesh's above are to be labelled as racism, unchallenged, you give them the oxygen to shout "SEE, 'THEY' ARE AS BAD AS US"

That is the kind of pandering which fuels Yaxley-Lennon. 

As it was me that quoted that picture ...that wasn’t what was said

I used them both as an example of where the BBC weren’t being seen to be consistent with their actions  , I didn’t comment on whether or not either post was racist , I was asking others to decide  “are these more / less racist than what Baker posted “

I don’t see that as pandering to Y- L types 

[snowychap]

4 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

It is, I know. But you were right when you said we need to consider context in it's entirety, or there's no point even trying to contextualise. I suppose I was just trying to make a point, that comments which when viewed context free could be construed as racist do not necessarily = racism.

I agree - which, in a roundabout way, brings us back to the actual event, i.e. Baker's tweet.