Not particularly impressed with Black Lives Matter. That said, I fully support the notion that oppressed visible minorities have an inherent right to hurt their own. Maybe BLM would like to bring Robert Mugabe back from the grave to help make Black people in North America suffer?
The BLM trash in Toronto recently got involved in a debate that saw the Green Party of Canada implode. The spokesperson for BLM (Canada) expressed support for the anti-Semitic ethnic cleansing of the Holy Lands.
Fellow anti-Arab terrorists in North America should rejoice at this source of political support for a greater and more glorious Israel with its lovely discourse of cultural superiority.
After that, it is hard not to think of BLM Canada as just more vocal racist trash.
âItâs an allegation as old as America â a sex-crazed Black man accused of attacking a white woman â and it came in Shelby County, the jurisdiction with the most recorded lynchings in the stateâs history and a disproportionate number of death sentences.â
I understand your point entirely. Which is to state that the US is not racist by definition, so any marginalised groups should either shut up or leave.
Which is all well and good, but wonderfully beside the point.
The issue here is to get everyone on board, including marginalised groups. All of the semantic bullshit going on between members of the dominant culture as to whether they or their systems are racist or discriminatory under their own definitions and which definitions apply is all well and good but is not going to do anything to get marginalised groups on board, if all you want them to do at the end of the day is suck it up and shut up anyway.
It gets worse when the institutions are designed to be fair and equal but are demonstrably exercised in ways that are not. Then your credibility is shot so you can talk till you are blue in the face.
Not very helpful.
You're missing my point which is purely about a definition. I am not advocating for boycotts or anything else if that is what you think was my point.
Discrimination by what people do is perfectly legal. Boycotts for example.
Fail. Try again.
Which is all well and good, but wonderfully beside the point.
The issue here is to get everyone on board, including marginalised groups. All of the semantic bullshit going on between members of the dominant culture as to whether they or their systems are racist or discriminatory under their own definitions and which definitions apply is all well and good but is not going to do anything to get marginalised groups on board, if all you want them to do at the end of the day is suck it up and shut up anyway.
It gets worse when the institutions are designed to be fair and equal but are demonstrably exercised in ways that are not. Then your credibility is shot so you can talk till you are blue in the face.
ethnic: of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background kurtster wrote:
In the USA for those paying attention, discrimination by race is prohibited by law. Discrimination using cultural differences is not.
What people do is different from what they are.
Discrimination by what people do is perfectly legal. Boycotts for example.
ethnic: of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background
kurtster wrote:
In the USA for those paying attention, discrimination by race is prohibited by law. Discrimination using cultural differences is not.
You two are quite lacking in your abilities to differentiate between culture and ethnicity.
You are trying to conflate two completely different things in order to justify your claims. .
cul·ture
noun 1. the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively. "20th century popular culture" Similar: the arts, the humanities, intellectual achievement(s), intellectual activity, literature, music, painting, philosophy 2. the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group.
In 1997, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued the Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity. See, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/fedreg_1997standards. These standards are commonly used for federal data collection purposes, not only in the decennial census, but also in household surveys, on administrative forms (e.g., school registration and mortgage lending applications), and in medical and clinical research. The revised standards contain five minimum categories for race: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White. There are two categories for ethnicity: "Hispanic or Latino" and "Not Hispanic or Latino."
Definitions for Racial and Ethnic Categories
The Revisions to OMB Directive 15 defines each racial and ethnic category as follows:
American Indian or Alaska Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.
Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. Terms such as "Haitian" or "Negro" can be used in addition to "Black or African American."
Hispanic or Latino. A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. The term, "Spanish origin," can be used in addition to "Hispanic or Latino."
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.
White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.
The categories and definitions provide a common language to promote uniformity and comparability of data on race and ethnicity. Moreover, federal agencies have a continuing commitment to monitor the operation of its review and award processes to detect, and deal appropriately with, any instances of real or apparent inequities. All analyses conducted on race and ethnicity report aggregate statistical findings and do not identify individuals.
So all my argument is about is how to come up with a shared vision, let's just say basic agreement on fundamental rights that we all respect. Some kind of pan-cultural accord. All this is about is listening to the voices of other cultures (and their biases) and also owning up to your own so as to facilitate that accord. All too frequently the dominant culture automatically assumes it has universality because it is the dominant one. While understandable, that is simply wrong and won't get us anywhere towards a universal accord.
how do we define that? or how do we define fundamental rights?
on a broad moral and ethical level the challenge we have is dealing with authoritarians/dictators
should those in power be able to edit and control information to push an agenda or dangerous belief system?
clearly if we look around we see differing definitions of the same words/rhetoric (intentional political/religious distortions?)
people in power and seeking more power over peaceful people, exercising higher claims by force, coercion or the threat of violence on another's life, freedom and property (the most basic human rights)
Before I address some individual thoughts it seems that there has been a conflation of racism and cultural bias made. They are two distinctly different things. People of the same race may and do have many different cultures. To infer that one certain culture is exclusive to one race is racist in itself.
In the USA for those paying attention, discrimination by race is prohibited by law. Discrimination using cultural differences is not.
To the melting pot, it is the act of all races embracing one set of cultural norms. A commonality or society with a legal framework as in the case of the USA.
There is no country on this planet that is more diverse than the USA. Individuals may express variations of a culture they embrace as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. It may offend others, but if that is all it does and does not impose anything else other than discomfort then the offended should yield gracefully and live and let live. Being offended gives no one a right to physically act on it. They may be offensive in return but that is fair. Inciting others to be offended (or hate) as the originally offended is / are and to act out on it is crossing a line however, imho. Isn't this how freedom of religion is supposed to work ?
But back to the conflation of race and culture. I believe that they need to be considered separately in order to discuss the issues of race properly.
Hey, some good points Kurtster!
re conflation of racism and cultural bias, scroll back where I talk of two different kinds of racism. The "Type 2" is what you would call cultural bias and you are not wrong, it is, in effect, merely cultural bias, but one frequently tied to national and racial identity so that you can't cleanly separate the two.
Note that none of the arguments I am using are pejorative or moral. This discussion arose from Westslope's comment that we need a shared vision for all to buy into and my reply that that also needs to be as elastic as possible to allow a lot of wiggle room for individual liberties. (BTW this also includes wiggle room for other cultural identities.)
So all my argument is about is how to come up with a shared vision, let's just say basic agreement on fundamental rights that we all respect. Some kind of pan-cultural accord. All this is about is listening to the voices of other cultures (and their biases) and also owning up to your own so as to facilitate that accord. All too frequently the dominant culture automatically assumes it has universality because it is the dominant one. While understandable, that is simply wrong and won't get us anywhere towards a universal accord.
but if that is all it does and does not impose anything else other than discomfort then the offended should yield gracefully and live and let live.
Before I address some individual thoughts it seems that there has been a conflation of racism and cultural bias made. They are two distinctly different things. People of the same race may and do have many different cultures. To infer that one certain culture is exclusive to one race is racist in itself.
In the USA for those paying attention, discrimination by race is prohibited by law. Discrimination using cultural differences is not.
To the melting pot, it is the act of all races embracing one set of cultural norms. A commonality or society with a legal framework as in the case of the USA.
There is no country on this planet that is more diverse than the USA. Individuals may express variations of a culture they embrace as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. It may offend others, but if that is all it does and does not impose anything else other than discomfort then the offended should yield gracefully and live and let live. Being offended gives no one a right to physically act on it. They may be offensive in return but that is fair. Inciting others to be offended (or hate) as the originally offended is / are and to act out on it is crossing a line however, imho. Isn't this how freedom of religion is supposed to work ?
But back to the conflation of race and culture. I believe that they need to be considered separately in order to discuss the issues of race properly.
Well, I'm not the one to ask on this, but merely from my perspective, what about the native people of Hawai'i * who never wanted to be part of the US? Or the First Nations people who lost their culture. Sure, they might have full rights under the current system, but what if they never wanted that system in the first place? (crude examples I know, but you get the point).
edit: I fully realise many of them (willingly?) acquiesced.
I am not arguing the US hasnt had examples of systemic racism...that should be obvious. But, I don't see many strong examples of current systemic racism. I probably agree with 90%+ of what you are (trying) to explain to me. My bigger point is the semantics...how the narrative is being framed...the arguments from both the left and right. The left use of racism, right not understanding/insensitive to the points you are making about new cultures and values...
oh, I have no doubt there is a good dose of hyperbole on the part of the left, wanting to maximise any leverage on this issue, like there was about clubbing innocent seals at the beginning of Greenpeace (it was admitted this was done to raise memberships to battle the real culprits of industrial toxic waste). Doesn't make them wrong though or that clubbing innocent seals is not somehow grotesque.
Fact is, there is still a great deal of discrimination along racial lines in just about every country I can think of. We need to think of what the reasons for this could be and how best to resolve it (without throwing the baby out with the bathwater).
Moreover, I'm pretty confident that resolution would enrich everyone concerned.
Well, I'm not the one to ask on this, but merely from my perspective, what about the native people of Hawai'i * who never wanted to be part of the US? Or the First Nations people who lost their culture. Sure, they might have full rights under the current system, but what if they never wanted that system in the first place? (crude examples I know, but you get the point).
edit: I fully realise many of them (willingly?) acquiesced.
I am not arguing the US hasnt had examples of systemic racism...that should be obvious. But, I don't see many strong examples of current systemic racism. I probably agree with 90%+ of what you are (trying) to explain to me. My bigger point is the semantics...how the narrative is being framed...the arguments from both the left and right. The left use of racism, right not understanding/insensitive to the points you are making about new cultures and values...
I am not sure where this ultimately takes us. What reconciliation for these kinds of injustices would allow for voluntary buy-in? Understanding the point of view born of this background certainly helps, but, realistically, little or nothing can be done to reverse some of what occurred. How and when can those kinds of grievances be sufficiently salved? Or will there never be buy-in?
Well, a lot of them have bought in. A lot of others have bought into a subculture based around gang culture (who supported the government in rolling out COVID vaccinations recently). The main point is that the cultures move towards each other, that the product contains elements that everyone can identify with. It is not so much about rectifying grievances (though that is part of it) but finding a new synthesis.
I don't really know how to explain this, but when you step outside your own cultural matrix and look back at it from the perspective of another culture, an awful lot of what previously seemed relevant, important, salient, fair, etc. takes on a distinct hue of being culturally biased, in the sense that it is part of sustaining the dominant elements of that culture. Thus from a hypothetical collective culture that upholds the sanctity of nature (for example), the notion of fair property rights to exploit nature suddenly appears abhorrent, though fair viewed through the cultural lens of the first culture.
Likewise, stating that every individual should be treated as a free and equal individual, while appearing magnificent to us, could appear scary to someone who grew up in the protective apron of a collective society. These are the cultural perspectives that have to be heard and reconciled if a system is to be truly fair.
In Blackie's defense, those examples can be explained by racists sitting at the seat of power and exercising undue influence in an otherwise neutral or fair system. His question was where is the system per se racist.
