The All Things Political Topic - Those who do not move, do not notice their chains

[BruceVC]

37 minutes ago, Amentep said:

 

I'd imagine pretty much everyone's view of history is selective.  We can't remember everything, so we remember the bits that resonate with us.  Note, I do not think that Whoopi's statements are due to selective history as I've heard other African-Americans express a similar opinion - that a lot of the bigotry (and resultant actions) in Europe (whether an extreme like Nazis vs Jews and Roma, or just various governments treatment of Irish, Polish, Italian, Basque or other emigres) isn't fundamentally the same as what befell Africans.

Im not sure we debating the same point and concern? My point is Goldberg repeated a false and selective understanding of history and in this case its about the Holocaust. She stated indirectly " the Holocaust was not about race because its white people killing white people ". Here is exactly what she said and the link is below

“Let’s be truthful about it because [the] Holocaust isn’t about race,” Goldberg said on Monday’s episode. “It’s not about race. It’s about man’s inhumanity to man… These are two white groups of people. The minute you turn it into race it goes down this alley. Let’s talk about it for what it is. It’s [about] how people treat each other. It doesn’t matter if you’re Black or white, Jews — it’s each other.”

https://www.aol.com/whoopi-goldberg-criticized-anti-defamation-002353328.html

This is what some people who believe in this type of revisionist  and selective history believe, they think Jews are white so its okay what happened because " white people did this to group xxx in their history " or something similar 

I have personally come across this example of selective\uninformed history before in other debates. Here is  a link to a SA professor of political science that believes the same thing 

https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2021-04-08-uct-launches-investigation-into-academics-lecture-on-adolf-hitler/

This debate is not a comparison between which minority group has been the greater target of oppression and bigotry. This is about a commentator not understanding her own argument and this is studiously misunderstand by a small groups of people globally as it suits their own ideological narrative 

[Malcador]

11 hours ago, BruceVC said:

My view on this type of false narrative is still the same, people who engage in these public debates should study the correct history of what they claim they care about and spend less time on CRT and other types of selective history

What does CRT have to do with Goldberg in this instance.

[Pidesco]

Regarding party names in Portugal:

 

Foreign journalist trying to understand the Portuguese elections

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

20 minutes ago, Pidesco said:

Regarding party names in Portugal:

 

Foreign journalist trying to understand the Portuguese elections

 

The most accurate thing is an American reporter not bothering to google something before writing about it.

[Elerond]

16 hours ago, Raithe said:

 

So they can't teach anymore that Jesus is God's son?

[Amentep]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Im not sure we debating the same point and concern? 

We are, you don't understand my point.  I reiterate that the point she made is not the first time I have heard that point before from other people, and I don't think it has to do with selective history as much as it is a very different interpretation of European history particularly in viewing things that some (particularly Nazi's) might see as "racial" as being "ethnic" instead.

This isn't to argue the view is correct, just that I think it has to do less with ignoring parts of history than having a completely different view on certain foundational concepts.  Note this isn't unique to this situation; I can't tell you the number of times that vastly different groups in other regions of the world are lumped together with no concern for the actual nuances of their history, culture and political divisions for the groups involved.

[ShadySands]

1 hour ago, Elerond said:

So they can't teach anymore that Jesus is God's son?

They didn't really think it through. This is how the Satanic Temple exploits and trolls these type of laws.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

3 hours ago, ShadySands said:

They didn't really think it through. This is how the Satanic Temple exploits and trolls these type of laws.

How are the fines allocated? If it's on the teachers, then I think the legislators just don't care about them having to pay out.

[Chairchucker]

9 hours ago, BruceVC said:

In what way is it simplistic, can you elaborate? Because many people do feel their is a modern  societal narrative that makes generalizations based on race, for example " white, male privlidege  " is an assumption for some and all white people benefit from it ?

This is not about 'the left'. The left is not a monolith. This is specifically about Whoopi and her own experiences and biases, specifically her experience of being part of the most discriminated against ethnic demographic in the country she's currently in right now.

 

Also, white privilege does in fact benefit all white people in the countries where the dominant and 'default' ethnicity is white. We don't get discriminated against on the basis of race by the predominantly white holders of power like all branches of government, police, prospective employers...

6 hours ago, BruceVC said:

 

“Let’s be truthful about it because [the] Holocaust isn’t about race,” Goldberg said on Monday’s episode. “It’s not about race. It’s about man’s inhumanity to man… These are two white groups of people. The minute you turn it into race it goes down this alley. Let’s talk about it for what it is. It’s [about] how people treat each other. It doesn’t matter if you’re Black or white, Jews — it’s each other.”

 

This is what some people who believe in this type of revisionist  and selective history believe, they think Jews are white so its okay what happened because " white people did this to group xxx in their history " or something similar

What she said was incredibly dumb and crappy, but I think it's important to note that the conclusion that you appear to have come to, 'so it's okay what happened', is absolutely not what she said.

[ShadySands]

9 minutes ago, KP the Torque Dork said:

How are the fines allocated? If it's on the teachers, then I think the legislators just don't care about them having to pay out.

My legalese isn't that great but it looks to me like it's on the teachers and not only that but

Quote

All persons found liable for damages shall make payment from personal resources and shall not receive any assistance from individuals or groups. Any evidence of receiving outside assistance shall result in termination of their position and a stay placed on any reemployment with any public school position within the state for five (5) years.

My take is whoever wrote this is both clueless and hates teachers

[Malcador]

These bills are the government equivalent of **** posting, it seems.

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

41 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

My legalese isn't that great but it looks to me like it's on the teachers and not only that but

My take is whoever wrote this is both clueless and hates teachers

**** me, that's just ****ing evil.

[Gorth]

7 hours ago, Pidesco said:

Regarding party names in Portugal:

 

Foreign journalist trying to understand the Portuguese elections

 

(After guessing every party's political affiliation wrong so far) Let me guess, your communists are not really communists? Oh, they are. Why are they in parliament, should they not be deployed executing land owners???

 

[Zoraptor]

2 hours ago, Chairchucker said:

What she said was incredibly dumb and crappy..

Dumb, sure, crappy, meh; she's arguably correct and it's mostly dumb because it was obviously going to get a negative reaction. Note: I absolutely loathe ethnicity and race as concepts, so bear that in mind...

Hardly anyone knows what race and ethnicity mean and use the terms interchangeably. They're fundamentally stupid concepts as used now and since they reduce whole groups of people to a few traits as if that's all that is important fundamentally crappy even when used as intended. Race being based on physical differences and ethnicity being based on cultural ones is the distinction that should be in effect but people can't handle the idea that Idris Elba could be racially west African but also ethnically English (and not just the National Front types you might imagine; we also got the infamous BBC claim that Luther doesn't count as a black tv series lead because... he doesn't have black friends or eat Caribbean food or act 'black'. Doubly ironic because Idris Elba has nothing to do with the Caribbean, he's of direct west African extraction)

Goldberg is arguably right because the Holocaust wasn't about race, but about ethnicity. Jews weren't separated based on physical traits as they are indistinguishable from general Europeans or Levantines with the stereotypical racist tropes of big nose and sallow skin being, well, stereotypical racist tropes. If you took me and Heinrich Himmler and asked a random person which had Jewish ancestry based on stereotypes 99% they'd pick Himmler, not me. Their genocide was perpetrated on cultural lines, not physical ones, and thus can most properly be said to based on ethnicity, not race, whatever the Nazis said. OTOH, the whole reason that the Rwandan Genocide could happen was because there were significant and apparent physical differences between Hutus- darker skinned, more robust build, central African appearance- and Tutsis with lighter skin, more gracile build and more of a north east African appearance. That's how you could get 400k people killed with machetes and sticks and who didn't have a cultural/ religious requirement to self identify; because they were easily identifiable by physical traits. But that is always labeled an ethnic genocide instead of a racial one, which it ought to be labeled as.

This is my biennial tirade about how stupid the concepts of race and ethnicity are, set the calendar for February 2024.

[BruceVC]

11 hours ago, Malcador said:

What does CRT have to do with Goldberg in this instance.

CRT is about a selective review of history and it creates a false or inaccurate  reading of  that history, the events of history are always immutable. Only the reasons or motives of people are a debate because unless their is written record we can only reflect on the outcomes of history  and not what people thought . Holocaust denialists or people thinking " Jews are white so what happened isn't  genocide "  ( this is what that SA professor said )  is also a false interpretation of history 

So what she said isnt directly part of the curriculum of CRT ( as far as we have access to it ) but the historical misinformation is the same 

10 hours ago, Amentep said:

We are, you don't understand my point.  I reiterate that the point she made is not the first time I have heard that point before from other people, and I don't think it has to do with selective history as much as it is a very different interpretation of European history particularly in viewing things that some (particularly Nazi's) might see as "racial" as being "ethnic" instead.

This isn't to argue the view is correct, just that I think it has to do less with ignoring parts of history than having a completely different view on certain foundational concepts.  Note this isn't unique to this situation; I can't tell you the number of times that vastly different groups in other regions of the world are lumped together with no concern for the actual nuances of their history, culture and political divisions for the groups involved.

 

Okay, Im still not 100 % clear on your point but I think I understand. Can you clarify what you mean by Goldbergs comments being about a  different interpretation of the Holocaust, we both agree what she said is incorrect and unacceptable but I am interested in the interpretation you are referring to. Because its simple to me, the Holocaust was genocide and the definition of genocide is the following   "In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group "

So Im unclear how anyone can have a different definition of what the Holocaust is unless a person is uninformed  or you have your own selective interpretation ?

5 hours ago, Chairchucker said:

This is not about 'the left'. The left is not a monolith. This is specifically about Whoopi and her own experiences and biases, specifically her experience of being part of the most discriminated against ethnic demographic in the country she's currently in right now.

 

Also, white privilege does in fact benefit all white people in the countries where the dominant and 'default' ethnicity is white. We don't get discriminated against on the basis of race by the predominantly white holders of power like all branches of government, police, prospective employers...

What she said was incredibly dumb and crappy, but I think it's important to note that the conclusion that you appear to have come to, 'so it's okay what happened', is absolutely not what she said.

Thanks for engaging in these debates, I appreciate your opinion even if we dont agree on everything

I agree that both the " left " and " right" are not monolithic groups in reality but in debates like this its easier to use those generalizations because of the nuance and complexities of these groups. We can always go into more specificities if you want in future debates?

Do you believe all white people where the default ethnicity is white  come from " white, male privlidege " automatically because we born white? What about South Africa, white people are only 6% and often " white, male privlidege " gets raised? So Im trying to understand when  this term is relevant and when it doesnt apply ?

[Chairchucker]

2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Do you believe all white people where the default ethnicity is white  come from " white, male privlidege " automatically because we born white? What about South Africa, white people are only 6% and often " white, male privlidege " gets raised? So Im trying to understand when  this term is relevant and when it doesnt apply ?

I dunno a damn thing about South Africa and I wouldn't presume to know what the situation is there. In Australia, yes, all of us whiteys automatically, by being born white, have the 'privilege' which is that we don't suffer the systemic discrimination and conscious or unconscious bias that minorities will experience by virtue of not being white.

 

That, of course, doesn't mean that there aren't white people who've grown up in really crappy situations and who might find it odd to hear that they have privilege. Nonetheless, no matter what a white person's economic or social or mental health or whatever else situation may be, it could always be worse by having, in addition to whatever else is going on in their life, the situation of being an ethnic or cultural minority in a country full of institutions and people who have systemic, conscious or unconscious biases against that ethnic or cultural minority. (Or whatever other minority, like sexuality or gender expression.)

[BruceVC]

8 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

I dunno a damn thing about South Africa and I wouldn't presume to know what the situation is there. In Australia, yes, all of us whiteys automatically, by being born white, have the 'privilege' which is that we don't suffer the systemic discrimination and conscious or unconscious bias that minorities will experience by virtue of not being white.

 

That, of course, doesn't mean that there aren't white people who've grown up in really crappy situations and who might find it odd to hear that they have privilege. Nonetheless, no matter what a white person's economic or social or mental health or whatever else situation may be, it could always be worse by having, in addition to whatever else is going on in their life, the situation of being an ethnic or cultural minority in a country full of institutions and people who have systemic, conscious or unconscious biases against that ethnic or cultural minority. (Or whatever other minority, like sexuality or gender expression.)

Thanks for sharing, I have heard people raise similar issues to what you saying and I agree with some of it  but you referring to  the Oz experience and not the global reality of how true " white, male privlidege " is so we not debating the same point 

Have you heard about a suggestion, it comes from the US, from some BLM activists that the way you deal with structural racism is all white people must first admit we all inherently racist. So the argument basically being if you acknowledge something as true then you can start to address it

I dont agree with that logic because why would anyone admit something as true if its not ? So why would I say I am racist if I am not?

Whats your view on that argument because it intersects with your view and the systemic racism in Oz ?

 

[Gorth]

11 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Have you heard about a suggestion, it comes from the US, from some BLM activists that the way you deal with structural racism is all white people must first admit we all inherently racist. So the argument basically being if you acknowledge something as true then you can start to address it

Sigh... here we go again. Seeing the shadows of BLM moving in every corner of society, being behind every evil and injustice in the world. I wonder if the Freemasons are secretly being operated by BLM's too?

 

On a more serious note, you can be part of a racist system without being personally racist. Actually, that's the very definition of systemic racism. It's the system itself that is biased and is based on "being white" being the default and being non white being the aberrant situation. If you go down to the bank asking for a mortgage, you are more likely (stressing the work "likely", exceptions exists just like everywhere else) to get it. If you have a name that sounds like you're Asian, African, Arab, something else, be prepared to have to provide a lot more security and bring a lot more documentation proving you're capable of repaying the mortgage. Applying for a job, much less a management position? Same thing. The bias exists whether you like it or not, when it comes to who you consider "trustworthy" or not. Fashion magazines, entertainment, you name it. White is the default. Even Disney got into a few problems when they did some not so subtle white washing of their movies. The "family friendly" company showing its true colours (yes, bad pun)

https://act.colorofchange.org/sign/Disney_stop_whitewashing_us/

 

Then there is the whole socio-economic "inheritance" thing. People being born into wealth and privilege or born into poverty and gang lift, based on centuries of racism which excluded population groups from keeping up with the dominant group. Basically, if you are born the wrong colour in a white dominated culture, you're ****ed from birth and on wards. Doesn't matter if the legislation has changed the last 50 years, you still start life with a large debt, that you need to service first before you can even hope to compete with those born to white parents. That's for me part of systemic racism too. The game is rigged from the beginning. Of course, for many people it's a big taboo to suggest something like free education, because that's "communist" (and threatens the white male privilege, which they after all inherited from their white, male fathers).

 

People can twist words and make up excuses all they want, but the western world is largely racist to this day. Some individuals resist it and fight it, but they are up against a rock wall, created by centuries of prejudice.

 

For the mandatory what-about-ism, Arabs regarded African captives as trade goods just as much as white traders did. Heck, even today, rich Arabs consider Philippine and South East Asian workers and laborers as little better than slaves, that can be sexually abused, beaten and the bodies disposed of in a garbage bin somewhere without consequences (because they're not "real humans" in the eyes of Allah after all).

 

Any modern country ruled by fear and nationalism seems to move from systemic (or low key) racism to overt racism as a tool to focus peoples anger... from Germany 1933 to Trump 2016

 

[BruceVC]

6 minutes ago, Gorth said:

Sigh... here we go again. Seeing the shadows of BLM moving in every corner of society, being behind every evil and injustice in the world. I wonder if the Freemasons are secretly being operated by BLM's too?

 

On a more serious note, you can be part of a racist system without being personally racist. Actually, that's the very definition of systemic racism. It's the system itself that is biased and is based on "being white" being the default and being non white being the aberrant situation. If you go down to the bank asking for a mortgage, you are more likely (stressing the work "likely", exceptions exists just like everywhere else) to get it. If you have a name that sounds like you're Asian, African, Arab, something else, be prepared to have to provide a lot more security and bring a lot more documentation proving you're capable of repaying the mortgage. Applying for a job, much less a management position? Same thing. The bias exists whether you like it or not, when it comes to who you consider "trustworthy" or not. Fashion magazines, entertainment, you name it. White is the default. Even Disney got into a few problems when they did some not so subtle white washing of their movies. The "family friendly" company showing its true colours (yes, bad pun)

https://act.colorofchange.org/sign/Disney_stop_whitewashing_us/

 

Then there is the whole socio-economic "inheritance" thing. People being born into wealth and privilege or born into poverty and gang lift, based on centuries of racism which excluded population groups from keeping up with the dominant group. Basically, if you are born the wrong colour in a white dominated culture, you're ****ed from birth and on wards. Doesn't matter if the legislation has changed the last 50 years, you still start life with a large debt, that you need to service first before you can even hope to compete with those born to white parents. That's for me part of systemic racism too. The game is rigged from the beginning. Of course, for many people it's a big taboo to suggest something like free education, because that's "communist" (and threatens the white male privilege, which they after all inherited from their white, male fathers).

 

People can twist words and make up excuses all they want, but the western world is largely racist to this day. Some individuals resist it and fight it, but they are up against a rock wall, created by centuries of prejudice.

 

For the mandatory what-about-ism, Arabs regarded African captives as trade goods just as much as white traders did. Heck, even today, rich Arabs consider Philippine and South East Asian workers and laborers as little better than slaves, that can be sexually abused, beaten and the bodies disposed of in a garbage bin somewhere without consequences (because they're not "real humans" in the eyes of Allah after all).

 

Any modern country ruled by fear and nationalism seems to move from systemic (or low key) racism to overt racism as a tool to focus peoples anger... from Germany 1933 to Trump 2016

 

Interesting post, you raise some good talking points 

I do think you are conflating some issues like credit  profile checks with racism, banks dont decide on loans based on race they decide on risk profile and whether you can pay back the loan. I have never heard of anyone not getting finance because of their race? Maybe you can provide links so I see what you talking about, do you know how many white people  I know who  have had credit and things like home loans denied to them?

I dont agree the Western world is largely racist, it exists but it is incidents of racism and not structural. Do you think bigotry  is worse in the West or in places like the ME, Russia and China? At least in Western countries their is societal and media acknowledgement  and criticism of it or do you disagree?

And then Im not obsessed with BLM, they represent a vocal but ultimately small part of my ideological views. Some of you guys keep bringing it up every time I mention it but their are many more pertinent developments  than BLM when  we discuss inequality and bigotry. So do you mind dropping the whole " you believe BLM is responsible for all the problems in our societies " ( because thats not what I believe) point when I raise issues about them and just respond to the question I raise about them, I can provide links if necessary to confirm what I am talking about ? 

[ComradeYellow]

This new left emerging in the U.S. is is kinda out there, they seem to spend more time on Fox News than anything and continuously attack liberals whilst trying to deescalate militarism abroad and they do promote free speech pretty adamantly and are against forced vaccinations.  I suppose it's noble but I don't know if I'm really "Feeling it" but then again I'm an authoritarian.

9 hours ago, Gorth said:

. Why are they in parliament, should they not be deployed executing land owners???

FFS this is not post Tsarist Russia stop with the ignorance.

Also, the socialists in Portugal has swept the communists under the rug.  Same thing happened in Germany when Sholz won, Die Linke got swept aside.  

[Gorth]

7 minutes ago, ComradeYellow said:

FFS this is not post Tsarist Russia stop with the ignorance.

Hey, attribute the quote correctly (it was the guy in the video who said that, you should watch it, it's funny)

 

[BruceVC]

7 minutes ago, ComradeYellow said:

This new left emerging in the U.S. is is kinda out there, they seem to spend more time on Fox News than anything and continuously attack liberals whilst trying to deescalate militarism abroad and they do promote free speech pretty adamantly and are against forced vaccinations.  I suppose it's noble but I don't know if I'm really "Feeling it" but then again I'm an authoritarian.

FFS this is not post Tsarist Russia stop with the ignorance.

Also, the socialists in Portugal has swept the communists under the rug.  Same thing happened in Germany when Sholz won, Die Linke got swept aside.  

Comrade whats your view on racism? Do you think most\all white people are inherently racist and do you think you are racist?

I dont think you racist ?

[ComradeYellow]

2 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Comrade whats your view on racism? Do you think most\all white people are inherently racist and do you think you are racist?

I dont think you racist ?

I have no racist bone in my body however there might be a danger of unchecked immigration if only because it leads to racist lashback and also criminal activity.

American whites do have a tendency to be fascistic and imperialistic though and they need to be crushed so my view as a Communist is everyone is welcome as long as they obey the law and follow government protocol.

[Amentep]

5 hours ago, BruceVC said:

 Okay, Im still not 100 % clear on your point but I think I understand. Can you clarify what you mean by Goldbergs comments being about a  different interpretation of the Holocaust, we both agree what she said is incorrect and unacceptable but I am interested in the interpretation you are referring to. Because its simple to me, the Holocaust was genocide and the definition of genocide is the following   "In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group "

So Im unclear how anyone can have a different definition of what the Holocaust is unless a person is uninformed  or you have your own selective interpretation ?

But Goldberg didn't say the Holocaust didn't happen, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Other than that, Zoraptor gave a better illustration of what I was talking about vis a vis my understanding of Goldberg's statements.

[majestic]

This is me, reading the posts in this thread, talking to my screen: