Thereunto

-5

Thereunto wrote

I appreciate that you took the time to reply.

The mobile version of the site doesn't display rules on the right of this page (perhaps a feature could be added).

I never said that poc are bad. We should avoid characterising anyone based on race altogether. I advocate that broad-stroke statements like "black people do this," "white people do that" shouldn't be used.

I'm not the only one to feel that if we are going to make judgements, we should judge someone by their individual actions and those they associate with in good faith, and never by their race/ phenotype/ genetic legacy.

That Charles Mills quote is great and he has a passion with his words. If you substitute "white ignorance" with "stubborn ignorance" it works just as well.

A Brit can be racist to an Irish. A Somalian can be racist to a Trinidadian. Someone can be racist by discriminating against a family-line that have distinctive/characteristic noses. I don't know what "reverse racism" is but racism is any discrimination based on race.

-7

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

Reply to Thereunto by /u/ziq

-4

Thereunto wrote

Hello there. I represent some opinions which are perhaps unpopular on this website. It is entirely up to you whether you wish to endorse respectful and honest free speech or silence opinions and questions you do not agree with. I denounce violence, and perhaps that is one of the most unpopular stances here.

If you look through my comment history you will see that I am searching for answers that no one has been willing to give an explanation for. In this thread ziq misquotes me, catsforfun misquotes me and all it takes is a moment to look through my comments yourself to verify.

Reply to comment by /u/Tequila_Wolf in Nazis by /u/Tequila_Wolf

-4

Thereunto wrote

Dehumanizing anyone is a potent interpersonal poison. The irony of reducing someone to a label to justify violence against them is that this is exactly what the Nazis did to anyone they didn't like.

-11

Thereunto wrote

"Fundamentally speaking, feminism [does not advocate for] racism, supremacy and oppressive domination in any form." - Linked Article

While in theory feminism is just a striving for equality of sexes, the statement isn't factually true about some cultural feminisms. It is common to have a female supremacist marginalise the suffering of men, such as Mary P. Koss. https://i.imgur.com/juq7kVB.jpg

You can also have versions of feminism that are catered to specific cultures and title themselves based on a percieved race focus (see white feminism and black feminism). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feminism

Zionism is similar to Islam in respect of their mutual Abrahamic origins and laws. To say one cannot be a zionist feminist is to say the same for islamic feminists. The argument over whether a niqab or hijab is OK for a woman to wear is a point of contention between different forms of feminism and doesn't have a clear answer.

-5

Thereunto wrote (edited )

Anti-buggery laws go back to Abrahamic (Middle-Eastern) religions with Sodom and Gomorrah. There are a number of very Christian Jamaicans.

Christianity was a key element in colony creation and expansion - and the evolution of British law. The Bible and religious culture is a major reason for resistances to some relationship types.

-8

Thereunto wrote

Some questions I've heard:

  1. Why should anyone avoid cultural appropriate when many ethnic cultures, such as the Japanese, or many religious cultures, such as Buddhism, encourage appropriation and assimilation? There are specific cultures that are relunctant to have outsiders integrate, who is a good authority to speak on behalf of those cultures?
  1. Anti-racism goes both ways and there is a difference between race and culture. At what point do we drop the context of race to resolve cultural issues?
  1. Cultivating an understanding is usually brought through dialogue. At what point do we balance a request for silence and an exploration of questions?
0

Thereunto wrote

I present to you an intellectually founded question with the hopes of reaching a understanding and method for conflict resolution.

Instead of explaining and unpacking your side of the story or offering counterpoints, you would rather project hatred and ad hominems? Why?

-9

Thereunto wrote

Let's ignore the fact that more visible minorities voted for Trump than previous republican leaders. Let's vilainize Trump and anyone who looks like him based on race. Let's ignore all of Obama's wrong doings based on race. Let's ignore that judging someone based on race is by definition racist. Let's ignore the fact that not all minorities are racist like the author. Let's ignore any sense of reasoning and harmony for the sake of anger.

Let's be ignorant.

Reply to Nazis by /u/Tequila_Wolf

-6

Thereunto wrote

Who do we call inhuman "Nazis"? Anyone we hate

Who guides us to whom to hate? People with simular hatred that we endow our trust in

Hatred is like holding a hot ember with the intent of throwing it at someone else. You are the one being burned.

Look at what it is doing to you.

-1

Thereunto wrote

The paper has a sizable length to it. I am not entirely sure why it tries to define gender by social role in the example with the stay at home mother.

If we reverse the roles, with the father staying home and the mother working, the genders are not obligated to follow the roles.

Applying an ownership concept with a benefactor and 'extractor' of surplus 'goods' doesn't entirely match up with the social dynamics of complex relationships either, especially if both parties are working.

Overall, I feel the paper presents a crude tool to guide a specific interpretation of genders and roles that loses a lot of utility when combing through many common socio-psychological phenomena.

0

Thereunto wrote

It would be interesting to see corrections in the data based on socio-economic factors. It would also be interesting to see corrections based on types of meat consumed (fish v. red)

E.g. a lower-class family living remotely near the arctic circle is less likely to be vegetarian based on the extreme price and scarcity of fresh produce. Lower-class people may also have poorer health in general based on a number of factors/stressors.

-6

Thereunto wrote

Racism is more or less an extension of nepotism. I don't find the terms "black" and "white" very useful in exploration of social issues. Talking in terms of specific genetic lineages, historical families of power, and cultural heritage at least gives us a workable context for issues.

-4

Thereunto wrote

I see stories of rich men and women abusing power, including being sexually inappropriate or covering up scandals; I have yet to see how the written structure of society is patriarchal. If the problem isn't with written law or early childhood education, where do you suggest we point the finger?

-2

Thereunto wrote

I would gamble the following suppositions are more often true than not:

Anyone who answered no to #7, #13, or #14 has never had a wholesome family upbringing where diplomacy with peers and siblings was held as a virtue.

Anyone who answered no to #8 has never had to protect and speak on behalf of children from the role of a parent or guardian.

Anyone who answered no to the final question is a de facto racist and is OK with racism.