freediver wrote on Jan 18
th, 2017 at 12:56pm:
It actually goes something like this: racism is real, even if race is not. This is why your insistence that it can be based on what you described as 'fake' groups like religion or profession cheapen the very real experiences of the victims of genuine racism.
How is that not contradictory?
First you say racism is real, even if race is not (exactly what I've been saying) - but then you say it somehow can't be based on 'fake groups'. Why not? You even offered one yourself as an example of racism - 'sand-negro'.
You're just not making sense FD. You seem to be in two minds about whether or not race exists - and especially about how it fits in with racism.
But I'm particularly interested in this claim that my version of racism somehow "cheapens" the experiences of victims of "real" racism. Are you seriously suggesting that moses' bigotry regarding all male muslims being of low intellect and killers wouldn't create 'victims'? You don't think a muslim male would justifiably feel 'victimised' by being labelled an inbred, low intellect killer? And that somehow being labelled a 'sand negro' is worse?
freediver wrote on Jan 18
th, 2017 at 12:56pm:
you insist that a sense of superiority could be the only reason for someone to deny basic rights to their fellow man on a group basis, yet people have been doing this since complex societies began, and for the most part it was driven by greed and self interest, without any regard for the basic rights of individuals from either the out group or the in group. To deny greed as a motivator is to deny human nature, which is what you are doing when you reject the very possibility of the hypotheticals I put forward.
whose denying greed? And where did I say superiority is the only reason to deny rights on a group basis? Capitalists deny, or at least attempt to deny the rights of their workers all the time - its basically their raison d'etre. But its not racism. Of course greed is everywhere and its behind all sorts of atrocities against our fellow humans. And where it is associated with a 'racialised' sense of superiority over the victims of your greed - then its racist. Which is precisely what your 'white English vs non-white English' scenario was - a racialised sense of superiority over the 'other'. It is literally the only plausible explanation for why one 'race' would want to kick out the other 'race'. If you want a scenario that reflects a non-racist English sense of entitlement based on historical heritage - I suggest something like 'all residents in England who themselves or their ancestors migrated to England after 1850 - should be kicked out'.
Forum
Pages: 
What is racism? (Read 93110 times)
