Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments


biomancer wrote

  1. The power dynamic making racism a societal institution doesn't go both ways. When people talk about Anti-racism it is the societal and structural prejudice based on race being discussed not simply racial prejudice without societal backing

  2. People who are being welcomed to participate in a thing is not the same as taking the thing commodifying or or presenting it as ones own thing without regard for the culture behind it. You are tilting at strawmen here.

  3. Yes and many questions have been answered multiple times if one takes the time to listen and seek out what has already been stated. Not the Original posted asked questions and no one has been upset at them. They demonstrated they have already done some digging theirself and asked for guidance towards finding more to help understand. Which is very different from what happens sometimes where 2 people are having a 300 level conversation and someone jumps in and they demand to be explained racism 101 derailing the entire conversation.


Thereunto wrote (edited )

I think this is the first genuine reply I've had on this site, thanks for taking the time.

  1. One of the bigger examples I can think is a native that married a light skinned Caucasian. Their son is a redhead that has mostly Caucasoid features. He was denied multiple times from joining his local Band (becoming a recognized member of the native community) because an elder didn't think he looked the way the way a native should - despite the fact he was officially recognized as a native by the government.

Societies exist on many levels. Some societies are as small as a local community and aren't always dictated by 'white rule'. When that redheaded native was denied entry into the community based on the colour of his skin and his appearance, that was racism. Racism absolutely goes both ways. When there is a judgement based on race, that is a racist judgement.

  1. Who is to decide whether someone is welcome or not? An example of that is dreadlocks. I know a family that has white skin and caucasoid features but also has a negroid Jamaican ancestor in the family tree. The grandmother had emmigrated from Jamaica and was a descendent of an old european family that settled there. The family line was present in Jamaica since almost its genesis. None of them ever wore dreadlocks, but if they wanted to, some people might call that cultural appropriation based on their appearance. Who is to decide if they are "allowed"?

  2. I think the problem is that the answers for what people find appropriate varies widely between groups. It even varies widely between social circles inside those groups. There is no Rosetta Stone for how people of a specific appearance think (and to assume there is would be racist). By me asking the questions here, I'm looking to find what this community thinks and to find the diversity of ideas within the community.

Stating, "isn't is obvious?" promotes the idea that blind assumptions are a good thing. When someone states, "I think this" based on an article, I like to know why they in particular think that way.

And again, thank you for taking the time to reply. It is much appreciated


selver wrote

Your Native example is a bit of a red herring. That is a case where a non-white group has the social & institutional backing. You aren't wrong about that being racism, but in 99% of the modern conversations about race (for example state/federal/corporate policies) it's just irrelevant. I do think leftists need to do a better job making it clear that they are talking about systemic racism. As for when do we drop race, when race is no longer an issue. Race as a concept should be abandoned at some point.


ziq admin wrote

Banned for "negroid" and denying the patriarchy, etc.