Society/Culture When is racism really racism?

[ferball]

Are you drunk?

Unfortunately not, given I'm reading this garbage.

 

[ExcitementMachine]

The relationship people have with their cultures is deeper than you are allowing for obviously.

And er ... what double standard?



No, that exists anyway. It doesn't come from ethnonationalism. Ethnonationalism comes from it and if the degree of in group bias is high enough its gonna be a toxic form of ethnonationalism. If you like ethnonationalism is an effect of that process of in-group favoritism - you're putting the cart before the horse.



Whatever you reckon fascist.



Yeah, the subtext, and the actual words you used in the comment I linked.

This rhetorical garbage for example:

Now, the new creed of Anti-Racism appears to define racism as any system or outcome where there is some racial disparity, whether race is the causal factor in that or not. The new creed of Anti-Racism can identify White Supremacy everywhere. Indeed, Western society has White Supremacy baked into it, so Western society is therefore racist fundamentally. I'm not sure what the solution to that should be? Remake all of Western society so it's less fundamentally racist? That may in fact be the objective. Although it's not clear how that would happen or how we would know when/whether this project has succeeded or not.

Its bullshit. You're making this crap up to give you the chance to ignore the way systemic racist outcomes are built into institutional behaviour.


As opposed to this which is just a comprehension fail:

I often wonder, when people say Western society (be it Australia, US, UK) is racist, what are they comparing it to?

Obviously they aren't comparing it to anything, just judging actions on their own merits.


Who cares?

The only reason the West is multicultural is all the colonisation. Without that why would anyone from elsewhere have ended up in a European society other than following their looted resources? The Japanese didn't just recently invade their home islands, wipe out the locals and then do what they could to loot the place and keep those looted resources flowing back to the people who ordered (and profit most from) the colonisation in the first place. (Sure they tried and failed a generation ago, but not in Japan itself.) That is what the White Australia policy was for. Keeping the natural wealth of Australia flowing back to England.

The Japanese might make the reasonable argument that their immigration policy is designed to prevent the peacetime version of the same thing happening in their own homelands.

So afaic you banging about our "multicultural society" as some great achievement or the pinnacle of human civilisation is disingenuous at best and more likely to be racist propaganda that exists to resist change not some accurate assessment of reality.

As an Irish Australian I call out you're distorted and complete bias of Australian history, and the British might have done some.terrible things, but they advanced the 'western world' to make societies in the west for some reason to be the most appealing place for foreigners to migrate to today.

That is an uncomfortable truth you need to incorporate to make your extreme views more balanced.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The relationship people have with their cultures is deeper than you are allowing for obviously.

It doesn't constitute ethnonationalism.

And er ... what double standard?

Your double standard between "good ethnonationalism" and "bad ethnonationalism" which you can't explain.

No, that exists anyway. It doesn't come from ethnonationalism. Ethnonationalism comes from it and if the degree of in group bias is high enough its gonna be a toxic form of ethnonationalism. If you like ethnonationalism is an effect of that process of in-group favoritism - you're putting the cart before the horse.

This is pure waffle. You've done your dash.

We should not enshrine ethnonationalism in our politics because it invariably fuels this "in group, out group" dynamic, which is fundamentally undesirable.

You want to have a bob each way by insisting there's "good ethnonationalism" and "bad ethnonatialism" but you can't explain the distinction.

Whatever you reckon fascist.

Bizarre and baseless.

Clearly your arguments have come up short. Better luck next time.

Yeah, the subtext, and the actual words you used in the comment I linked.

This rhetorical garbage for example:

Now, the new creed of Anti-Racism appears to define racism as any system or outcome where there is some racial disparity, whether race is the causal factor in that or not. The new creed of Anti-Racism can identify White Supremacy everywhere. Indeed, Western society has White Supremacy baked into it, so Western society is therefore racist fundamentally. I'm not sure what the solution to that should be? Remake all of Western society so it's less fundamentally racist? That may in fact be the objective. Although it's not clear how that would happen or how we would know when/whether this project has succeeded or not.

Its bullshit. You're making this crap up to give you the chance to ignore the way systemic racist outcomes are built into institutional behaviour.

So what's your point exactly? Where did I say that racism is no longer an issue?

What am I "making up"?

Can you try to connect the dots or make a coherent argument based on something I've said, as opposed to something you've imagined?

As opposed to this which is just a comprehension fail:

I often wonder, when people say Western society (be it Australia, US, UK) is racist, what are they comparing it to?

Obviously they aren't comparing it to anything, just judging actions on their own merits.

And that's why it's a nonsensical statement. Are they simply saying that racism exists? Of course it does. But it's a complaint with no frame of reference, sense of scale or point of comparison.

If they're actually saying that Western societies are particularly racist, then the question remains: compared to what? Compared to which other societies?

Who cares?

In other words, you know you're in the wrong again?

How many times does it have to happen?

The only reason the West is multicultural is all the colonisation. Without that why would anyone from elsewhere have ended up in a European society other than following their looted resources? The Japanese didn't just recently invade their home islands, wipe out the locals and then do what they could to loot the place and keep those looted resources flowing back to the people who ordered (and profit most from) the colonisation in the first place. (Sure they tried and failed a generation ago, but not in Japan itself.) That is what the White Australia policy was for. Keeping the natural wealth of Australia flowing back to England.

The Japanese might make the reasonable argument that their immigration policy is designed to prevent the peacetime version of the same thing happening in their own homelands.

So afaic you banging about our "multicultural society" as some great achievement or the pinnacle of human civilisation is disingenuous at best and more likely to be racist propaganda that exists to resist change not some accurate assessment of reality.

I simply asked which immigration policy is more racist and for some reason you refuse to answer.

Instead, you seek to change the subject. Because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.

You've taken a real hiding in this thread.

 

[ferball]

Good ethnonationalism as you put it is a positive relationship with your national heritage when its tied to a genetic and cultural common ground. Bad ethnonationalism is when you use that relationship to deny people opportunities to partake in a society they and you are part of, usually thu the mechanism of the state. (Japan's immigration policy doesn't qualify as bad ethnonationalism cos the people its supposedly hurting don't have that problem.)

Australia's immigration policy is more racist.

(Its a myth that Japanese immigration policies are racist. One you are pushing, along with the barrow you brought when you bumped this thread that western society isn't systemically racist or based on white supremacy. Why are you pushing these racist ideas?)

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Good ethnonationalism as you put it is a positive relationship with your national heritage when its tied to a genetic and cultural common ground.

But that on its own doesn't constitute ethnonationalism. That is simply having ancestry that came from somewhere, which is basically everyone.

I am aware that my ancestors came from the UK. It doesn't make me a white ethnonationalist or a British ethnonationalist.

You are redefining ethnonationalism in the broadest, most benign terms to justify your double standrd.

Bad ethnonationalism is when you use that relationship to deny people opportunities to partake in a society they and you are part of, usually thu the mechanism of the state.

That is simply a consequence of ethnonationalism, which we should resist generally.

Japan's immigration policy doesn't qualify as bad ethnonationalism cos the people its supposedly hurting don't have that problem.

An immigration policy designed to preserve 98 per cent "ethnic purity" is an expression of ethnonationalism.

You've simply decided you're OK with it, for reasons that make no sense.

Australia's immigration policy is more racist.

How?

It has produced a far more diverse, more multicultural population. How is it more racist than a policy that preserves 98 per cent ethnic purity?

You are arguing the opposite of what is obviously true. What kind of haywire ideological commitments have persuaded you to do this?

Its a myth that Japanese immigration policies are racist.

They are designed to preserve ethnic purity. That's not racist?

One you are pushing, along with the barrow you brought when you bumped this thread that western society isn't systemically racist or based on white supremacy. Why are you pushing these racist ideas?

I never said there weren't instances of systemic racism in Western society.

I made the point that if you are motivated to define racism in its broadest possible terms, to the point that all Western society is deemed fundamentally racist, what is the solution to that? Surely there is no option but to remake Western society?

What if some people don't want to remake Western society? Are all those people automatically racists?

And let's say we all sign on for that grand mission. How would we know whether it has succeeded or not?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

ferball Let's replace racism with something else that we all agree is undesirable, something else that we all agree should be minimised.

Imagine if someone said that Australia and other Western societies have a real problem with infant mortality rates, which is the death of a young child before their first birthday.

Of course, we'd all agree that any instance of that happening is bad. We'd all agree that societies should aspire to bring that number to zero. So if we're simply saying that "infant mortality occurs in Western societies and that's bad", then of course we'd all agree with that. That is entirely uncontroversial.

But if someone is saying that Australia and other Western societies have a particular problem with infant mortality rates, then that is a different kind of statement and it requires a frame of reference or comparison to substantiate it.

At that point, you'd have to consider how those societies compare with other societies, or how they compare with themselves in the past. You might note, for example, that Australia has one of the lower infant mortality rates in the world and it's been trending downwards. So does the statement that there is a particular problem with infant mortality bear out?

We should frame the question about racism the same way. We'd all agree that any instance of racism is bad. We'd all agree that societies should aspire to reduce racism as far as possible. And if we're simply saying that "racism exists and that's bad", then of course we'd all agree with that.

But if you are saying that Australia and other Western societies have a particular problem with racism, then that is a different kind of statement. They have a problem with racism compared to what? Other societies? In what sense?

 

[ferball]

But that on its own doesn't constitute ethnonationalism. That is simply having ancestry that came from somewhere, which is basically everyone.

I am aware that my ancestors came from the UK. It doesn't make me a white ethnonationalist or a British ethnonationalist.

You are redefining ethnonationalism in the most benign possible terms to justify your double standrd.

Yeah because I know of people who practise what is as close to ethnonationalism as the words allow and they don't fit your descriptor of iot.

An immigration policy designed to preserve 98 per cent "ethnic purity" is an expression of ethnonationalism.

You've simply decided you're OK with it, for reasons that make no sense.

It has produced a far more diverse, more multicultural population. How is it more racist than a policy that preserves 98 per cent ethnic purity?

You are arguing the opposite of what is obviously true. What kind of haywire ideological commitments have persuaded you to do this?

They are designed to preserve ethnic purity. That's not racist?

I never said there weren't instances of systemic racism in Western society.

Do you have a citation that shows that right now Japan maintains the immigration policy you claim? Cos thats not what I've heard about it.

I made the point that if you are motivated to define racism in its broadest possible terms, to the point that all Western society is deemed fundamentally racist, what is the solution to that? Surely there is no option but to remake Western society?

Yep. This process has been happening since ww2 when Western civilisation was confronted with the worst elements of itself.

What if some people don't want to remake Western society? Are all those people automatically racists?

And let's say we all sign on for that grand mission. How would we know whether it has succeeded or not?

No, not necessarily. Some are scared of change ... but the outcome of their fear means people in an outgroup suffer.

When rainbow coloured unicorms start flying between your ears you'll know.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Yeah because I know of people who practise what is as close to ethnonationalism as the words allow and they don't fit your descriptor of iot.

In what sense are these people ethnonationalists?

Do you have a citation that shows that right now Japan maintains the immigration policy you claim? Cos thats not what I've heard about it.

Are you disputing that Japan remains 98 per cent "ethnically pure"?

They have begun to gradually relax their immigration laws because they need certain kinds of skills/labour and they have a demographic crisis on their hands, but that doesn't necessarily translate to permanent residency for foreign nationals. And you don't get 98 per cent "ethnic purity" by accident.

Yep. This process has been happening since ww2 when Western civilisation was confronted with the worst elements of itself.

So Western civilisation needs to be remade? How?

What about all the aspects of Western civilisation that are admirable? If they're products of fundamental racism and white supremacy, I guess we have to jettison all of it in this grand project?

When rainbow coloured unicorms start flying between your ears you'll know.

So you reckon Western civilisation needs to be remade but you can't say what that would look like or how we'd know if it succeeded?

Is it any surprise that people regard this with scepticism?

 

[ExcitementMachine]

ferball

But if you are saying that Australia and other Western societies have a particular problem with racism, then that is a different kind of statement. They have a problem with racism compared to what? Other societies? In what sense?

Well thought out question i noticed the troll didn't respond to it.

 

[ferball]

ferball

We should frame the question about racism the same way. We'd all agree that any instance of racism is bad. We'd all agree that societies should aspire to reduce racism as far as possible. And if we're simply saying that "racism exists and that's bad", then of course we'd all agree with that.

But if you are saying that Australia and other Western societies have a particular problem with racism, then that is a different kind of statement. They have a problem with racism compared to what? Other societies? In what sense?

You don't have to compare a particular problem in one place to another place. You identify it and then act to find and implement solutions to the problem.

Ie we have a particular problem with racism. This particular problem is centred around outcomes for different racial groups throughout their interactions with the criminal justice system. We have identified this problem and now we need to act on it by finding and implementing solutions (not by comparing ourselves to China or the Tashkent PD.)

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You don't have to compare a particular problem in one place to another place. You identify it and then act to find and implement solutions to the problem.

But that is simply saying that racism exists and it's bad. Of course. We can all agree on that.

But presumably you are saying more than that? You are saying there is a particular problem in Australia and the West generally.

That kind of statement invites the question: compared to what?

If Australia and the West are actually less racist than most of the other countries, and less racist than they themselves were 20 years or 50 years or 100 years ago, what does it mean when you say they have a particular problem with racism?

Compared to what?

Ie we have a particular problem with racism. This particular problem is centred around outcomes for different racial groups throughout their interactions with the criminal justice system. We have identified this problem and now we need to act on it by finding and implementing solutions (not by comparing ourselves to China or the Tashkent PD.)

Sure. We should constantly seek to improve these outcomes. I have no problem with calling for a more just society and rejecting racism wherever we encounter it.

But does that mean Australia is particularly racist? Is it more racist than other countries?

 

[ferball]

In what sense are these people ethnonationalists?

I know people from various indigenous tribes around the world. They consider themselves nations defined by culture, ethnicity, language and location, defend their rights when and where they can. None are recognised nation states, some are recognised by the UN in other contexts including the right to some self determination in some cases.

Are you disputing that Japan remains 98 per cent "ethnically pure"?

They have begun to gradually relax their immigration laws because they need certain kinds of skills/labour and they have a demographic crisis on their hands, but that doesn't necessarily translate to permanent residency for foreign nationals. And you don't get 98 per cent "ethnic purity" by accident.

You'll need some citations for all that. And you'll have to discount the possibility that (effectively) no one wants to go there to live.

So Western civilisation needs to be remade? How?

What about all the aspects of Western civilisation that are admirable? If they're products of fundamental racism and white supremacy, I guess we have to jettison all of it in this grand project?

So you reckon Western civilisation needs to be remade but you can't say what that would look like or how we'd know if it succeeded?

Is it any surprise that people regard this with scepticism?

You don't think Western Civilisation has begun to remake itself since WW2?

Really?

This argument is about degrees and the post you made to bump this thread refuses to recognise other people might have a different view to yours about the extent things need to be remade.

 

[ferball]

But that is simply saying that racism exists and it's bad. Of course. We can all agree on that.

But presumably you are saying more than that? You are saying there is a particular problem in Australia and the West generally.

That kind of statement invites the question: compared to what?

If Australia and the West are actually less racist than most of the other countries, and less racist than they themselves were 20 years or 50 years or 100 years ago, what does it mean when you say they have a particular problem with racism?

Compared to what?

I specifically identified the problem and you quoted it. Compared to what? Compared to what we should be given the crap we claim about ourselves as a nation.

Sure. We should constantly seek to improve these outcomes. I have no problem with calling for a more just society and rejecting racism wherever we encounter it.

So obviously, despite a history of actively working against racism since ww2, we have disproportionate outcomes attributable to race throughout Western legal systems. Despite the best intentions of many good people I might add. I'm not denying any of that. Its a great achievement and the West should be proud of where we are in comparison to where we were, but we aren't "there" yet when our legal system seems to have this structural bias against people on the basis of who they are not what they did.

But does that mean Australia is particularly racist? Is it more racist than other countries?

Who cares. Really when it comes down it, who cares?

We aren't other countries. We are us.

We should be responsible for ourselves and should act on our own terms.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I know people from various indigenous tribes around the world. They consider themselves nations defined by culture, ethnicity, language and location, defend their rights when and where they can. None are recognised nation states, some are recognised by the UN in other contexts including the right to some self determination in some cases.

I don't think recognising shared culture, language and coming from the same place necessarily constitutes ethnonationalism. You could go to Chinatown in any country and see people doing that. It doesn't constitute ethnonationalism.

In what sense do these tribes seek to function as a nation?

You'll need some citations for all that. And you'll have to discount the possibility that (effectively) no one wants to go there to live.

Japan's relative ethnic purity and strict immigration laws are well documented. Equally, you can find plenty of examples of Japanese politicians referring to the country as "one nation, one culture" over the years. This is hardly a controversial claim.

You don't think Western Civilisation has begun to remake itself since WW2?

Really?

Give me an example of what you mean by "remaking itself".

This argument is about degrees and the post you made to bump this thread refuses to recognise other people might have a different view to yours about the extent things need to be remade.

That's not an argument.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I specifically identified the problem and you quoted it. Compared to what? Compared to what we should be given the crap we claim about ourselves as a nation.

So you are comparing Australia to an idealised version of itself where there is zero racism? Of course, in those terms, Australia falls short. Until there is zero racism, Australia has failed to live up to that standard. That's a meaningless claim.

But if you are saying Australia is a particularly racist country, then surely that invites a comparison with other countries.

In your mind, are there countries that aren't racist? What would you say is the least racist country in the world?

So obviously, despite a history of actively working against racism since ww2, we have disproportionate outcomes attributable to race throughout Western legal systems. Despite the best intentions of many good people I might add. I'm not denying any of that. Its a great achievement and the West should be proud of where we are in comparison to where we were, but we aren't "there" yet when our legal system seems to have this structural bias against people on the basis of who they are not what they did.

That's fine.

But that doesn't make Australia a particularly racist country.

Who cares. Really when it comes down it, who cares?

We aren't other countries. We are us.

We should be responsible for ourselves and should act on our own terms.

It matters if you are saying Australia is a particularly racist country.

That invites a comparison.

 

[Taylor]

So you are comparing Australia to an idealised version of itself where there is zero racism? Of course, in those terms, Australia falls short. Until there is zero racism, Australia has failed to live up that standard. That's a meaningless claim.

It's not meaningless, that previous comment I wrote that progressive politics requires the consumer to see their luxurious context as unacceptably flawed and in need of being fixed, they need it to fall short.

It's why the discussion can't be allowed to be what you want, the clearly objective reality that Australia is at the pinnacle of human existence in all aspects.

All so they can avoid discussing that the values and attitudes that brought us to this point having value worth preserving.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

It's not meaningless

It's meaningless if he is arguing Australia is a particularly racist country, as opposed to simply saying that there is non-zero racism.

It's why the discussion can't be allowed to be what you want, the clearly objective reality that Australia is at the pinnacle of human existence in all aspects.

I haven't said that.

 

[Taylor]

It's meaningless if he is arguing Australia is a particularly racist country, as opposed to simply saying that there is non-zero racism.

I haven't said that.

You're right, those are my words.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Check out this from The Washington Post. It's a few years old but it ranks countries according to the percentage of people who said they wouldn't want to live next door to people of a different race.

ferball which is the least racist country in the world? It's almost like the fundamentally racist West is the most chilled about it.

 

[yebiga]

Are you offended and outraged because no one appreciates your hard work?

Who should get credit for progress such as women's suffrage, civil rights for black folks and more recently same-sex marriage? Those are fundamentally progressive causes, no? Were they all terrible mistakes? Or have you got some misleading way of claiming they were all actually conservative achievements?

It's not my hard work. It's all the hard work that made all of this possible. Gave you the wherewithal to type on remote screen and communicate across time and space..

All these progressive advances occurred well before this dumb virtue signalling became the rage.

Ultimately, no one gets the credit as each advance/progressive step requires the preceding generations contribution.
You don't climb the top rung of a ladder without the preceding steps.

The rational basis of all this virtuous progressive screeching is absent. Look behind virtuous saccharine veneer, is a projection of self loathing. It is difficult for lives trained in self gratification and indolence to find meaning and purpose. So, this empty symbolic virtue signalling serves as a proxy for any real purpose or meaning.

But hey, what the hell do I know?

 

[Ben The Donkey]

... But hey, what the hell do I know?

Perhaps more than you give yourself credit for.

 

[ExcitementMachine]

Check out this from The Washington Post. It's a few years old but it ranks countries according to the percentage of people who said they wouldn't want to live next door to people of a different race.

ferball which is the least racist country in the world? It's almost like the fundamentally racist West is the most chilled about it.

View attachment 1118562

Thanks for that graph.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Thanks for that graph.

ferball in your opinion, what is the least racist country in the world?

Which countries should Australia seek to emulate in their absence of racism?

Or are you judging Australia against an impossible standard that has not been met by any country in human history? And failure to meet it means Australia is fundamentally racist?

You don't see the problem with this?

I think you have certain activist/ideological commitments that have led you to certain positions that aren't rationally sustainable.

Or do you think that reason itself, as a product of the Enlightenment, is also a fundamental expression of White Supremacy and should therefore be rejected?

I mean, we're remaking Western civilisation to be less fundamentally racist so presumably we have to do away with the Enlightenment as well? Right?

What about Nasa? Not diverse enough? The moon landing was an expression of White Supremacy?

The human genome was mapped by white males. White Supremacy! Get rid of it.

Penicillin? White male! Remake it!

These are obviously ridiculous contentions but they are the logical upshots of your flawed ideological commitments. If you want to reject Western civilisation en masse because it's fundamentally racist, you presumably also disavow its most remarkable achievements as expressions of that same White Supremacy. Are you cool with that?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

ferball how do you regard the Pyramids and the Great Wall of China?

Are they remarkable feats of engineering and human ingenuity?

Or are they monuments to slavery, in which case they should obviously be torn down?

Or do you apply that standard only to Western civilisation?

 

[ferball]

So you are comparing Australia to an idealised version of itself where there is zero racism? Of course, in those terms, Australia falls short. Until there is zero racism, Australia has failed to live up to that standard. That's a meaningless claim.

But if you are saying Australia is a particularly racist country, then surely that invites a comparison with other countries.

In your mind, are there countries that aren't racist? What would you say is the least racist country in the world?

That's fine.

But that doesn't make Australia a particularly racist country.

It matters if you are saying Australia is a particularly racist country.

That invites a comparison.

You're the one who first used the term "particular problem" then who used the term "particularly" racist.

Answer your own strawman.