The team will not get any praise from me and I will hold off in giving my usual blunt honest opinion in such matters that I feel are important to me in the development of a game. So I will go with the simple "No Comment". For now.
The team will not get any praise from me and I will hold off in giving my usual blunt honest opinion in such matters that I feel are important to me in the development of a game. So I will go with the simple "No Comment". For now.
The team will not get any praise from me and I will hold off in giving my usual blunt honest opinion in such matters that I feel are important to me in the development of a game. So I will go with the simple "No Comment". For now.
After the week this forum's had, and the sheer amount of ignorant responses from people who haven't even played the game to see the facts for themselves?
There is no "racism against white people". There is no "white race"
Exactly what I said. Anyone that isn't a straight white person considers white people to not even be a race. Social Justice Warriors think that way because it's easier to call them names and what's not. If we were considered a race, we would have rights under the Social Justice Warrior movement.
I know you're banned - but for anyone who agrees with this guy, again, THERE IS NO WHITE RACE. How do you classify a "white" race? There is no such distinction culturally or genetically. "Race" is a social construct, and by that I mean things like "Black", "White", "Yellow", "Brown", "Red" which is an old classification system made by, unsurprisingly, white supremacists/imperialists.
If you think this is so ridiculous - can you explain to me what the "white" race is? What is white culture? You can't. All that exists is a vague collection of cultures and phenotypes that bear a certain similarity or geographical origin that a certain system has decided should inherit the earth. And this is a problem.
What there ARE, are thousands of different ethnic groups and hundreds of nationalities(though the concept of a "nation" in modern terms is at least partly an imperialist construction). Dividing these into the likes of "black" and "white" is nonsensical and not based in any real science or anthropology.
""White" people have never been an oppressed group, as an ethnic distinction. Anywhere. Ever. "
Well, the Celts of Britain who were oppressed by the Romans or the Germans who were oppressed by the Romans or the Germans who oppressed the Romans or the Irish who were oppressed by the English (recall potato famine and Swift's "Modest Proposal") etc. will be ecstatic to hear it. EDIT: And I bet I know what the rejoinder will be, but I won;t argue it here, because this is really OT.
I'm Irish/Scottish you don't need to tell me my own history, thanks.
The fact remains that "White" people as a supergroup are not oppressed for being white. And the majority of "White" subgroups are not oppressed, since that's largely what whiteness is.
This picture is wrong. 3 % of colored villains? I call bullshit on that. Not to mention, why would we count people "of color" ? As opposed to white people? Why are white people the base to compare to? Seems extremely racist toward white people to me. Or are white people not even allowed to be counted as a race?
It's really hard to take you seriously you know? Like... you just don't get it, on any level. And I don't think you particularly care about people that aren't like you at all.
You can't just say "That picture is wrong." Do you have better statistics? And thanks for ignoring the central point which is that LGBT rep in Hollywood blockbusters is essentially non-existent.
Racist against white people FFS.
When it's time to cry for racism, Social Justice Warriors point out how Hollywood villains are so often Muslims and other color race religion. But when it's time to say that non-white-straight people are underrepresented, suddenly, only 3 % of villains are non white.
Manipulation of information at it's finest.
Like that graph demonstrates an ACTUAL PROBLEM and you still manage to paint yourself and white people(somehow) as the victim here. This isn't a point we've reached where we're still having a real argument. It's you going out of your way to be as obtuse as possible. Like you latched onto the villain statistic - why? Do you think it's somehow not a bad thing that Hollywood keeps throwing out the same middle eastern terrorists again and again?
Also, you know what, I'm going to recommend everyone else do this too - I'm not engaging a post that contains the word "Social Justice Warrior" because it's effectively used as a slur. If your first instinct is to compare it to "cis", "white" or "male" then it just proves you're coming from a disingenous place, because those describe a demographic and aren't inherently weighted. I'm also not interested in dealing with people who nasty enough to turn around to an actual factually marginalised person and claim they're being somehow oppressed for having their own crappy attitudes called out. Just no.
There is a problem with racism and erasure of LGBT people in Hollywood. Full stop. And it's largely the same for video games. If you can't accept this basic point then your grip on reality is too tenuous to get into a real debate.
There is no "racism against white people". Do you know where the term "white people" comes from? There is no "white race" or "black race" or "yellow race". These were distinctions that were created in the US hundreds of years ago to justify slavery and give poor whites a sense of superiority. What exactly constitutes "white" isn't constant in of itself throughout history. Genetically, a British person is still quite different to someone from the Balkans, or Scandinavia. There are lots of grey areas - people from the Balkans and southern Italy who don't have typically "white" features(probably due to admixture from North African, Middle Eastern or Romani populations over the centuries).
The idea that you can't be racist against white people is when a lot of anti-SJWs just act like everything's a big joke. But again - the creation of the white race was ENTIRELY a system of subjugation. "White" people have never been an oppressed group, as an ethnic distinction. Anywhere. Ever. Because "White" SPECIFICALLY refers to an American construct used to justify slavery and exported back to Europe and other Europe colonised countries. There is no such thing - for that reason - as racism against "White" people as a group.
Okay, not to support the bigots, but race (skin color) as a concept to excuse slavery was invented in Ancient Egypt, not the USA. "White" to describe people of a caucasian descent has existed for way longer than you seem to think, though what a white person is has changed wildely since it's entrance into language in the 16th century (the chinese were once considered white)so yes it is entirely possible to racist against white people, though it is rare for institutional racism to exist against white people due to the privilege of the plurality. Also, race in this post is vastly off topic, either create a new discussion in the off-topic board, or go elsewhere. Beamdogs decision has nothing to do with race/ethnicity.
What you're describing is colourism which is not the same thing as anti-blackness. Anti-blackness is specifically based off the characterisation of Subsaharan Africans(and other dark skinned African ethnic groups) as genetically and culturally inferior. Colourism exists in most cultures(for example India and it's caste system - though in it's modern form this was partly influenced by British colonists and the imposition of darker skinned Indians as somehow more African, as well as "Dravidian" existing as less Aryan "race"), and indeed many Arab nations for example can also be quite racist in their treatment of other ethnicities. But it still doesn't change the fact that for the last few hundred years, whiteness has been the dominant global force and "black" and "brown" people largely the enslaved and the colonised. And it's modern distinction very much has it's roots in America(and a little in Europe not long before - here's a good article on it - http://www.orchestratedpulse.com/2014/08/racism-white/).
Why do you think we only see gay guys and transgender people on tv anymore, and barely any lesbians at all? the gay-lesbian ratio is far from an even and fair 50 - 50. Straight guys feels an aversion when exposed to gay guys and transgender people. You Social Justice Warriors, Politically Correct people falsely assume this to be hatred taught by other hateful people when in fact, the aversion is biological in nature. It's in our genes.
Things caused by genes is usually forgiven by the Social Justice Warriors, everything biological is forgiven except ( gasp! ) when it comes from straight males. What a surprise.
And so they keep their psychological attacks upon us, newly persecuted straight males ( especially the white ones ) and falsely pretend it's to help the very very very small minority of transgender people. The question is why should we suffer just because they suffer? Only hateful people would think that way, and yes, those people are hateful Social Justice Warriors.
I see lesbians on tv fairly frequently (on the rare occasions that I watch tv these days). If you feel that isn't the case, it may be because one of the requirements for being a lesbian is to be a woman. And those get on tv far less frequently already. A combination of 2 underrepresented minorities? Of course that will be pretty rare.
Also why is a lack of lesbians an attack on straight white men? If those are the sorts of 'lesbians' you're looking for, there's an entire genre of film based around them.
There's actually a huge issue with depicting queer women on TV. It's something like 1 in 3 now they'll end up dead. It's ridiculous.
@Roseweave I too am Irish and Scottish, and with what you're saying, it probably wouldn't hurt to refresh yourself on our history.
Furthermore, "Interestingly, the first effect that the British had on the caste system was to strengthen rather than undermine it, for the British gave the Brahmans back certain special privileges which under Muslim had been withdrawn from them. On the other hand, the British legislators did not agree that the members of the lower-caste should receive greater punishment than members of the upper-caste for committing the same offense. Under British rule, the untouchables and low-caste Indians enjoyed an improvement of their social standings. For example, with wealth and education, they could pass as members of higher castes from some distant area. The strict restrictions on social contacts became harder to enforce as members of different castes mingled increasing. The newly educated and affluence middle class in the cities mixed socially with people based on their financial position and class and not caste. Under the British, it was wealth and education, which determines a person's social status not caste." http://www.victorianweb.org/history/empire/india/caste.html
You're freaking hilarious. BTW this all belong in the POLITICS thread, not the official statement. Moderator please move, or delete, whatever. Thank you.
@Roseweave So the majority of the slaves in the modern world exist are in Africa and the middle east. The modern definition includes debt bondage. Is caused by white people?
It is funny in every modern white nation slavery is illegal.
This is a major reason Russia having anything to do with human rights is laughed at. It is the only white majority country with slaves. Most of which are debt slaves to the government.
Let's ignore that when the slave trade happened the slaves were sold by Africans. Slaves from Africa were usually the families of political rivals as well as entire tribes. Sold by the Africans, which still sells thier own people to Arab countries. And the majority of the slaves from the African slave trade went to the Portuguese and we're treated much more harshly than in America. (You should look into sugar cane plantations.) Which technically the Portuguese are not Caucasian, but of European Hispanic decent. Which Hispanic is the only ethnic group that consists of all skin colors in the US census.
Sorry the world's problems isn't caused by white people. It's not factual in anyway. The world's problems are caused by putting any credence on ethnic background. Skin color doesn't make a person any more or less of a person. Skin color brings no real genetic variation.
A heart attack is treated the same way between ethnic groups, barring allergies.
A chest tube is done the same way for all ethnic groups.
Any life saving procedure is done the same for all humans regardless of ethnic background.
Just seeing other ethnic backgrounds or skin colors is divisive. As well as anti unity.
Also White Supremacy is an ideology, not an action. Just because a majority in x country is white does not make the country white supremacist.
Supremacy organizations and ideologies are mocked in modern society. The ideologies are usually non sequitur filled with half truths and flat out lies. Whether it be white, black, hispanic, or women's supremacy movements. They are all part of hateful movements.
White Supremacy is not taught and hardly encouraged in modern day America. Ending true white supremacy has already happened. When it is legal for a group that is assembled peacefully (no matter how hateful thier rhetoric) can be kicked the shit out of with no legal recourse against the attackers. That is indicative that white supremacy is not tolerated.
Everyone has the same opportunities, but what you do with those is based on individual choices rather than systemic ones.
Why do you hate white people, to the point you have to demonize, pathologize, and lie about that ethnic group?
"White people" is not an ethnic group. "English" or "German" or "French" or "American" or "Australian" are ethnic groups. Roseweave was neither demonizing nor pathologizing white people/ She simply described history and fairly accurately at that.
I mean I am white and I have no problem acknowledging that whiteness has existed the way she says it has.
"White people" is not an ethnic group. "English" or "German" or "French" or "American" or "Australian" are ethnic groups. Roseweave was neither demonizing nor pathologizing white people/ She simply described history and fairly accurately at that.
I mean I am white and I have no problem acknowledging that whiteness has existed the way she says it has.
Those are nationalities.
"Ethnicity (noun) is the identification of a person with a particular racial, cultural, or religious group. Here are a few examples that will demonstrate the difference between the two. 1. 'My nationality is Italian, but my ethnicity is Caucasian.'" http://www.softschools.com/difference/nationality_vs_ethnicity/45/
The positions elaborated here are quite close to those held by Anthony Appiah and Naomi Zack. I'll quote the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on their racial skepticism here:
"Anthony Appiah and Naomi Zack contend that the term race cannot refer to anything real in the world, since the one thing in the world to which the term could uniquely refer—discrete, essentialist, biological races—have been proven not to exist. Zack provides an accessible summary of the racial skeptic’s argument against the biological foundations for race, sequentially summarizing the scientific rejection of essences, geography, phenotypes, post-Mendelian transmission genetics, and genealogies as possible foundations for races. Aristotelian essences, thought to ground the common characteristics of distinct species, were correctly rejected by early modern philosophers. If essences cannot even ground differences among species, then they clearly cannot ground the differences among races, which even nineteenth century racial science still understood as members of the same species. Whereas folk theories rely on geography to divide humanity into African, European, Asian, and Amerindian races, contemporary population genetics reveal the vacuity of this foundation for two reasons. First, geographically based environmental stimuli lead to continuous physical adaptations in skin, hair and bone rather than the discrete differences associated with race; and second, although mitochondrial DNA mutations provide evidence of the geographical origins of populations, these mutations do not correlate with the physical traits associated with racial groups. Similarly, phenotypes cannot ground folk theories of race: for instance, differences in skin tone are gradual, not discrete; and blood-type variations occur independently of the more visible phenotypes associated with race, such as skin color and hair texture. Race cannot be founded upon transmission genetics, since the genes transmitted from one generation to the next lead to very specific physical traits, not general racial characteristics shared by all members of a putatively racial group. And finally, genealogy cannot ground race, since clades (populations descended from a common ancestor) may have common genetic characteristics, but these need not correlate with the visible traits associated with races. Zack concludes: “Essences, geography, phenotypes, genotypes, and genealogy are the only known candidates for physical scientific bases of race. Each fails. Therefore, there is no physical scientific basis for the social racial taxonomy”.
Racial skeptics like Appiah and Zack adopt normative racial eliminativism, which recommends discarding the concept of race entirely, according to the following argument. Because of its historical genealogy, the term race can only refer to one or more discrete groups of people who alone share biologically significant genetic features. Such a monopoly on certain genetic features could only emerge within a group that practices such a high level of inbreeding that it is effectively genetically isolated. Such genetic isolation might refer to the Amish in America or to Irish Protestants, but they clearly cannot refer to those groupings of people presently subsumed under American racial census categories. Because the concept “race” can only apply to groups not typically deemed races (Amish, Irish Protestants), and because this concept cannot apply to groups typically deemed races (African Americans, Whites, Asians, Native Americans), a mismatch occurs between the concept and its typical referent. Thus, the concept of race must be eliminated due to its logical incoherence."
@Roseweave I too am Irish and Scottish, and with what you're saying, it probably wouldn't hurt to refresh yourself on our history.
Furthermore, "Interestingly, the first effect that the British had on the caste system was to strengthen rather than undermine it, for the British gave the Brahmans back certain special privileges which under Muslim had been withdrawn from them. On the other hand, the British legislators did not agree that the members of the lower-caste should receive greater punishment than members of the upper-caste for committing the same offense. Under British rule, the untouchables and low-caste Indians enjoyed an improvement of their social standings. For example, with wealth and education, they could pass as members of higher castes from some distant area. The strict restrictions on social contacts became harder to enforce as members of different castes mingled increasing. The newly educated and affluence middle class in the cities mixed socially with people based on their financial position and class and not caste. Under the British, it was wealth and education, which determines a person's social status not caste." http://www.victorianweb.org/history/empire/india/caste.html
You're freaking hilarious. BTW this all belong in the POLITICS thread, not the official statement. Moderator please move, or delete, whatever. Thank you.
You know do you think that maybe a site called "victorianweb" might be a biiiit biased? What works on paper isn't what happened in actuality. Brits are responsible for driving home a lot of the existing colorism present in Indian society. The page also proposes the largely discredited "Aryan invasion" theory.
No way in hell was India somehow better under Indian rule. In fact, there's a lot of brutality that happened that people never even speak about. But I'd rather not get into that right now.
@Roseweave So the majority of the slaves in the modern world exist are in Africa and the middle east. The modern definition includes debt bondage. Is caused by white people?
It is funny in every modern white nation slavery is illegal.
After it was practiced for hundred of years and white nations built their wealth on the backs of it? And after they figured out how to jig capitalism to create effective forms of slavery, especially in the global South? Who do you think drives the demand for sweat shops and chinese mega factories with suicide nets? Maybe not entirely the west, but mostly.
This is a major reason Russia having anything to do with human rights is laughed at. It is the only white majority country with slaves. Most of which are debt slaves to the government.
Um America has this too??? Seriously? How much do you know about the US Prison system?
Let's ignore that when the slave trade happened the slaves were sold by Africans. Slaves from Africa were usually the families of political rivals as well as entire tribes. Sold by the Africans, which still sells thier own people to Arab countries. And the majority of the slaves from the African slave trade went to the Portuguese and we're treated much more harshly than in America. (You should look into sugar cane plantations.) Which technically the Portuguese are not Caucasian, but of European Hispanic decent. Which Hispanic is the only ethnic group that consists of all skin colors in the US census.
The African slave trade was nothing like racialised Chattel-based slavery. Generally, the slaves that were sold were from conquered tribes/territory, this was a very common practice throughout both Africa and Europe(Romans) at the time. Slavery was in many ways the capitalism of the time. However, Chattel style slavery was brutal and was a flat out denial of the human rights of the enslaved. Within Chattel style slavery, the slave had no actual human rights and could be killed during punishment. They were slaves until the day they died, their children would be slaves. Their very "race" was used to determine their status.
For that matter, indentured servitude also isn't compared to Chattel slavery, before people bring up the "Irish slaves" thing again.
Sorry the world's problems isn't caused by white people.
But white people conquered most of the world, so by definition they sort of are. Maybe going back a few centuries you could blame the Ottomans, or the Mongols, or someone... but by and large European colonists/imperialists are responsible for the global zeitgeist. If white people didn't CAUSE most of these problems, they at the very least had their hands in those pies. For example while homophobia isn't solely a western european construction, in it's current form it was largely alien to Africa & the Muslim world. And now look at what you have.
It's not factual in anyway. The world's problems are caused by putting any credence on ethnic background. Skin color doesn't make a person any more or less of a person. Skin color brings no real genetic variation.
I don't know what you're saying here? It's about institutions. Whiteness is an institution. It was created to justify the treatment of other "Races" as lesser. That system exists. It's been well documented. It's not nonsensical to put "credence" in "ethnic background". White, black, etc. aren't just about different ethnic groups and we already established this.
A heart attack is treated the same way between ethnic groups, barring allergies.
A chest tube is done the same way for all ethnic groups.
Any life saving procedure is done the same for all humans regardless of ethnic background.
Just seeing other ethnic backgrounds or skin colors is divisive. As well as anti unity.
What's anti-unity is people denying the immense amount of damage people of their background have done to the rest of the world and pushing false equivalences that get in the way of understanding where these problems come from.
This ideology is some of the worst crap in the world. I don't see skin colour! Let's just get along! Yet funnily enough you have some very specific things to claim about what white people did or didn't do. Plus - several studies have found that "colourblindness" is actually a form of racism. Feel free to google it. It's just a way of reassigning the blame.
Also White Supremacy is an ideology, not an action. Just because a majority in x country is white does not make the country white supremacist.
What white supremacy actually means, is the idea that whites hold some amount of inherent superiority to other races, and thus other races must work harder to prove themselves, and ultimately be subjugate to a white institution. This absolutely describes the US. Even your black president was rendered mostly toothless.
Supremacy organizations and ideologies are mocked in modern society. The ideologies are usually non sequitur filled with half truths and flat out lies. Whether it be white, black, hispanic, or women's supremacy movements. They are all part of hateful movements.
Black and white supremacy are absolute incomparable because white supremacy is an actual system that exists and killed and enslaved millions of people. What do you think is an example of black supremacy, the Black Panthers? You know nothing. The KKK are responsible for far more killings than the Black Panthers(who did stuff like operating soup kitchens - for ALL poor people, and even have ties to LGBT activism), yet which organisation was forced to disband? This should tell what you want you need to know about white supremacy vs. black supremacy.
White Supremacy is not taught and hardly encouraged in modern day America.
It absolutely is, but in more subtle ways. Anti-SJWs don't seem able to understand any real level of social theory and just make fun of it when we try to explain basic sociological terms. When a disproportionate majority of heroes are white(cis, straight, able) men, and many groups of PoC are likely to be villains or stereotypes, how does that not send a message?
Being blatant is what's not encouraged. But that depends entirely on where you are. The Trump candidacy has shown that many people are absolutely not beyond it.. People like Milo have written several times on how "White"/western culture is simply "better".
Ending true white supremacy has already happened. When it is legal for a group that is assembled peacefully (no matter how hateful thier rhetoric) can be kicked the shit out of with no legal recourse against the attackers. That is indicative that white supremacy is not tolerated.
No, it hasn't. And frankly if you're not black you should absolutely not be saying this. White people like us can only help raise the voices of PoC. Dismissing and erasing their claims IS white supremacy at work. It's saying you know better about their experiences than the likes of #blacklivesmatter do. Which you don't - at all.
Everyone has the same opportunities, but what you do with those is based on individual choices rather than systemic ones.
No, they don't. There are so many articles I could pull up on this. Like for example racist housing policy, and the creation of the american middle class was very much centred on the creation of white wealth. Schools are also funded by local taxes meaning black people who are much more likely to live in poor areas literally DON'T have the same opportunities. Even with minority scholarships, and even adjusted for grades(which is unfair for the above reasons) black people STILL receive less scholarships overall. How on earth is this equality of opportunity? It's nonsense.
Why do you hate white people, to the point you have to demonize, pathologize, and lie about that ethnic group?
"Why do you hate white people" is white supremacist/stormfront//pol/ speak tbh. What you're saying is the narrative that's been pushed on us for years yet you act like you're more enlightened. You just believe in silencing and subjugating black voices where I believe in signal boosting.
White is not an ethnic group. White was a distinction created in Europe and America to forward white european/american exceptionalism, Manifest Destiny etc.
I don't hate people of individual ethnic groups. I hate whiteness as a concept. I hate what makes people like you write posts like this.
"White people" is not an ethnic group. "English" or "German" or "French" or "American" or "Australian" are ethnic groups. Roseweave was neither demonizing nor pathologizing white people/ She simply described history and fairly accurately at that.
I mean I am white and I have no problem acknowledging that whiteness has existed the way she says it has.
Those are nationalities.
"Ethnicity (noun) is the identification of a person with a particular racial, cultural, or religious group. Here are a few examples that will demonstrate the difference between the two. 1. 'My nationality is Italian, but my ethnicity is Caucasian.'" http://www.softschools.com/difference/nationality_vs_ethnicity/45/
Caucasian isn't a real ethnicity. That's just another way to say "white."
Also, that definition is kind of silly because cultural groups and nationality are often the same thing. Being a part of the English cultural group, French cultural group, German cultural group. But there is no such thing as a white/caucasian cultural group.
Throwing around simplistic dictionary definitions often serves to obfuscate rather than enlighten.
@Roseweave I too am Irish and Scottish, and with what you're saying, it probably wouldn't hurt to refresh yourself on our history.
Furthermore, "Interestingly, the first effect that the British had on the caste system was to strengthen rather than undermine it, for the British gave the Brahmans back certain special privileges which under Muslim had been withdrawn from them. On the other hand, the British legislators did not agree that the members of the lower-caste should receive greater punishment than members of the upper-caste for committing the same offense. Under British rule, the untouchables and low-caste Indians enjoyed an improvement of their social standings. For example, with wealth and education, they could pass as members of higher castes from some distant area. The strict restrictions on social contacts became harder to enforce as members of different castes mingled increasing. The newly educated and affluence middle class in the cities mixed socially with people based on their financial position and class and not caste. Under the British, it was wealth and education, which determines a person's social status not caste." http://www.victorianweb.org/history/empire/india/caste.html
You're freaking hilarious. BTW this all belong in the POLITICS thread, not the official statement. Moderator please move, or delete, whatever. Thank you.
You know do you think that maybe a site called "victorianweb" might be a biiiit biased? What works on paper isn't what happened in actuality. Brits are responsible for driving home a lot of the existing colorism present in Indian society. The page also proposes the largely discredited "Aryan invasion" theory.
No way in hell was India somehow better under Indian rule. In fact, there's a lot of brutality that happened that people never even speak about. But I'd rather not get into that right now.
@Roseweave So the majority of the slaves in the modern world exist are in Africa and the middle east. The modern definition includes debt bondage. Is caused by white people?
It is funny in every modern white nation slavery is illegal.
After it was practiced for hundred of years and white nations built their wealth on the backs of it? And after they figured out how to jig capitalism to create effective forms of slavery, especially in the global South? Who do you think drives the demand for sweat shops and chinese mega factories with suicide nets? Maybe not entirely the west, but mostly.
This is a major reason Russia having anything to do with human rights is laughed at. It is the only white majority country with slaves. Most of which are debt slaves to the government.
Um America has this too??? Seriously? How much do you know about the US Prison system?
Let's ignore that when the slave trade happened the slaves were sold by Africans. Slaves from Africa were usually the families of political rivals as well as entire tribes. Sold by the Africans, which still sells thier own people to Arab countries. And the majority of the slaves from the African slave trade went to the Portuguese and we're treated much more harshly than in America. (You should look into sugar cane plantations.) Which technically the Portuguese are not Caucasian, but of European Hispanic decent. Which Hispanic is the only ethnic group that consists of all skin colors in the US census.
The African slave trade was nothing like racialised Chattel-based slavery. Generally, the slaves that were sold were from conquered tribes/territory, this was a very common practice throughout both Africa and Europe(Romans) at the time. Slavery was in many ways the capitalism of the time. However, Chattel style slavery was brutal and was a flat out denial of the human rights of the enslaved. Within Chattel style slavery, the slave had no actual human rights and could be killed during punishment. They were slaves until the day they died, their children would be slaves. Their very "race" was used to determine their status.
For that matter, indentured servitude also isn't compared to Chattel slavery, before people bring up the "Irish slaves" thing again.
Sorry the world's problems isn't caused by white people.
But white people conquered most of the world, so by definition they sort of are. Maybe going back a few centuries you could blame the Ottomans, or the Mongols, or someone... but by and large European colonists/imperialists are responsible for the global zeitgeist. If white people didn't CAUSE most of these problems, they at the very least had their hands in those pies. For example while homophobia isn't solely a western european construction, in it's current form it was largely alien to Africa & the Muslim world. And now look at what you have.
It's not factual in anyway. The world's problems are caused by putting any credence on ethnic background. Skin color doesn't make a person any more or less of a person. Skin color brings no real genetic variation.
I don't know what you're saying here? It's about institutions. Whiteness is an institution. It was created to justify the treatment of other "Races" as lesser. That system exists. It's been well documented. It's not nonsensical to put "credence" in "ethnic background". White, black, etc. aren't just about different ethnic groups and we already established this.
A heart attack is treated the same way between ethnic groups, barring allergies.
A chest tube is done the same way for all ethnic groups.
Any life saving procedure is done the same for all humans regardless of ethnic background.
Just seeing other ethnic backgrounds or skin colors is divisive. As well as anti unity.
What's anti-unity is people denying the immense amount of damage people of their background have done to the rest of the world and pushing false equivalences that get in the way of understanding where these problems come from.
This ideology is some of the worst crap in the world. I don't see skin colour! Let's just get along! Yet funnily enough you have some very specific things to claim about what white people did or didn't do. Plus - several studies have found that "colourblindness" is actually a form of racism. Feel free to google it. It's just a way of reassigning the blame.
Also White Supremacy is an ideology, not an action. Just because a majority in x country is white does not make the country white supremacist.
What white supremacy actually means, is the idea that whites hold some amount of inherent superiority to other races, and thus other races must work harder to prove themselves, and ultimately be subjugate to a white institution. This absolutely describes the US. Even your black president was rendered mostly toothless.
Supremacy organizations and ideologies are mocked in modern society. The ideologies are usually non sequitur filled with half truths and flat out lies. Whether it be white, black, hispanic, or women's supremacy movements. They are all part of hateful movements.
Black and white supremacy are absolute incomparable because white supremacy is an actual system that exists and killed and enslaved millions of people. What do you think is an example of black supremacy, the Black Panthers? You know nothing. The KKK are responsible for far more killings than the Black Panthers(who did stuff like operating soup kitchens - for ALL poor people, and even have ties to LGBT activism), yet which organisation was forced to disband? This should tell what you want you need to know about white supremacy vs. black supremacy.
White Supremacy is not taught and hardly encouraged in modern day America.
It absolutely is, but in more subtle ways. Anti-SJWs don't seem able to understand any real level of social theory and just make fun of it when we try to explain basic sociological terms. When a disproportionate majority of heroes are white(cis, straight, able) men, and many groups of PoC are likely to be villains or stereotypes, how does that not send a message?
Being blatant is what's not encouraged. But that depends entirely on where you are. The Trump candidacy has shown that many people are absolutely not beyond it.. People like Milo have written several times on how "White"/western culture is simply "better".
Ending true white supremacy has already happened. When it is legal for a group that is assembled peacefully (no matter how hateful thier rhetoric) can be kicked the shit out of with no legal recourse against the attackers. That is indicative that white supremacy is not tolerated.
No, it hasn't. And frankly if you're not black you should absolutely not be saying this. White people like us can only help raise the voices of PoC. Dismissing and erasing their claims IS white supremacy at work. It's saying you know better about their experiences than the likes of #blacklivesmatter do. Which you don't - at all.
Everyone has the same opportunities, but what you do with those is based on individual choices rather than systemic ones.
No, they don't. There are so many articles I could pull up on this. Like for example racist housing policy, and the creation of the american middle class was very much centred on the creation of white wealth. Schools are also funded by local taxes meaning black people who are much more likely to live in poor areas literally DON'T have the same opportunities. Even with minority scholarships, and even adjusted for grades(which is unfair for the above reasons) black people STILL receive less scholarships overall. How on earth is this equality of opportunity? It's nonsense.
Why do you hate white people, to the point you have to demonize, pathologize, and lie about that ethnic group?
"Why do you hate white people" is white supremacist/stormfront//pol/ speak tbh. What you're saying is the narrative that's been pushed on us for years yet you act like you're more enlightened. You just believe in silencing and subjugating black voices where I believe in signal boosting.
White is not an ethnic group. White was a distinction created in Europe and America to forward white european/american exceptionalism, Manifest Destiny etc.
I don't hate people of individual ethnic groups. I hate whiteness as a concept. I hate what makes people like you write posts like this.
"White people" is not an ethnic group. "English" or "German" or "French" or "American" or "Australian" are ethnic groups. Roseweave was neither demonizing nor pathologizing white people/ She simply described history and fairly accurately at that.
I mean I am white and I have no problem acknowledging that whiteness has existed the way she says it has.
Those are nationalities.
"Ethnicity (noun) is the identification of a person with a particular racial, cultural, or religious group. Here are a few examples that will demonstrate the difference between the two. 1. 'My nationality is Italian, but my ethnicity is Caucasian.'" http://www.softschools.com/difference/nationality_vs_ethnicity/45/
Caucasian isn't a real ethnicity. That's just another way to say "white."
Also, that definition is kind of silly because cultural groups and nationality are often the same thing. Being a part of the English cultural group, French cultural group, German cultural group. But there is no such thing as a white/caucasian cultural group.
Throwing around simplistic dictionary definitions often serves to obfuscate rather than enlighten.
No, you're wrong. Caucasian refers to white skinned of EUROPEAN ORIGIN. That's a big caveat. Albino Africans are "white," that's a skin color, not an ethnicity such as Caucasian.
Siege of Dragonspear represents more than 25 hours of new Baldur’s Gate gameplay, and more than 500,000 words of writing.
I think that actually pales in comparison to the number of words and hours that are being put into posts about race. Trent, there's a lot of untapped writer potential here.
Siege of Dragonspear represents more than 25 hours of new Baldur’s Gate gameplay, and more than 500,000 words of writing.
I think that actually pales in comparison to the number of words and hours that are being put into posts about race. Trent, there's a lot of untapped writer potential here.
You *know* there's nothing more entertaining than arguing about race, sex, gender, orientation, and religion on the internet! Why do you think we're all not playing SoD right now?
I have a feeling that this thread is going to be closed, just like a number of others that Roseweave has been a part of on these forums. I don't think that essentialist ramblings on race is on topic for this thread.
I have a feeling that this thread is going to be closed, just like a number of others that Roseweave has been a part of on these forums. I don't think that essentialist ramblings on race is on topic for this thread.
Few pages ago a whole chunk of these posts were dumped into a new thread spesifically for that sort of thing. Guess people either couldn't take a hint or are just hellbent on getting this thread closed. Which is unfortunate. People should be able to comment on a public announcement like this one.
I have a feeling that this thread is going to be closed, just like a number of others that Roseweave has been a part of on these forums. I don't think that essentialist ramblings on race is on topic for this thread.
Few pages a whole chunk of these posts were dumped into a new thread spesifically for that sort of thing. Guess people either couldn't take a hint or are just hellbent on getting this thread closed. Which is unfortunate. People should be able to comment on a public announcement like this one.
One must admit however, it is a brilliant way to stifle the topic.
"White people" is not an ethnic group. "English" or "German" or "French" or "American" or "Australian" are ethnic groups. Roseweave was neither demonizing nor pathologizing white people/ She simply described history and fairly accurately at that.
I mean I am white and I have no problem acknowledging that whiteness has existed the way she says it has.
Those are nationalities.
"Ethnicity (noun) is the identification of a person with a particular racial, cultural, or religious group. Here are a few examples that will demonstrate the difference between the two. 1. 'My nationality is Italian, but my ethnicity is Caucasian.'" http://www.softschools.com/difference/nationality_vs_ethnicity/45/
Caucasian isn't a real ethnicity. That's just another way to say "white."
Also, that definition is kind of silly because cultural groups and nationality are often the same thing. Being a part of the English cultural group, French cultural group, German cultural group. But there is no such thing as a white/caucasian cultural group.
Throwing around simplistic dictionary definitions often serves to obfuscate rather than enlighten.
No, you're wrong. Caucasian refers to white skinned of EUROPEAN ORIGIN. That's a big caveat. Albino Africans are "white," that's a skin color, not an ethnicity such as Caucasian.
Actually, Caucasian refers to people from the countries surrounding the Caucasus mountains, who are largely not thought of as European. It's thought that Indo-Europeans originated there, thus the "Caucasoid/Caucasian" designations. They were also mostly under the "brown" designation of races, tending to resemble middle eastern peoples more than the average european. Would you consider the average Armenian white for example? I don't think most Armenians(save the Kardashians) have a very "white" experience.
So there is no "technical" definition for White. Referring to all Indo-Europeans as one race is difficult and most would not be willing to admit Indians, most Persians, and certainly not Roma(who are technically more white than Indians) are "white". This also relies on the concept of "Aryan" peoples(which is also incorrect - Aryans are Iranian people, who are not typically white featured either - look at Sarah Shahi who is only half Persian but is clearly non-white, Persian features & genetics are somewhere between Arab and North Indian) and again getting back to the concept of an Aryan invasion in India which probably never happened. While Indo-European languages certainly have a common origin the concept of Indo-Europeans as a group vs. Arabs and Africans and "Mongoloid" peoples is quite nebulous. Not to mention that many Indians, Pakistanis, and of course Turkish people(Turkmen do not originate from Anatolia, which also originally spoke a PIE related language, Hittite etc.) have some "Mongoloid" heritage and it is in fact part of their identity - names such as Khan etc. are Mongoloid in origin(Gengis Khan anyone?)
So again, there is no reliable way to classify "White" people, so we cannot say they exist. The same goes for most "races". There are only individual ethnic groups and even that gets fuzzy.
People don't need reminding that white lives matter. They do need reminding that black lives do. So really what you're doing is tying to stop black people from speaking out about their oppression.
This is what Black Lives Matter is trying to say friend.
Well bro, maybe they should change their message then.
Not at all, you see it is true that all lives should matter, but given that weird situations keep happening to black people such as this woman getting arrested and institutionalized simply because the police would not believe she was a banker owning a BMW. And since that does not really happen as much to white or asian people, we are focusing on black lives mattering for a moment.
Not at all, you see it is true that all lives should matter, but given that weird situations keep happening to black people such as this woman getting arrested and institutionalized simply because the police would not believe she was a banker owning a BMW. And since that does not really happen as much to white or asian people, we are focusing on black lives mattering for a moment.
It's good to drive responsibly. Standing up and dancing at a red light is not proper, responsible use of a vehicle. A cop's duty is hard, subjected to unjust half truths like your post every day for decades.
Did you know that cops are vampires? That's why they need to ask permission before they can come into your house. Something to be aware of my good friends.
I know some people employ dogma in these debates. ie. if you say x about y thats _insert bad word here_.
And in general its useless to argue with ideologues because all they are interested in doing is reiterating their talking points. aka Richard Dawkins arguing with Creationists about evolution. Success for the Creationists is creating drama and attention for the talking points because no logic can save them. As a point of fact debating with people who have no intention to debate is a useless exercise.
This is what debating with some people feels like in this debate about the writing. For instance I could make a comment about the writing and someone will equate that with me having issues with LGBT issues. No matter what I say they will just keep repeating that talking point again and again. So I put it to you forum goers that this is deliberate. The Kotaku article was flamebait designed to cause a reaction which it got and the rest you can see for yourselves.
*For instance the all lives matter vs black lives matter is a non-sequitur and does not follow the logical conclusion from such statements. Its a political talking point and puts people against each other needlessly for political purposes.
Or prove that you can debate the issues sensibly. Abandon the talking points and get into the minutiae of writing and the various elements that can improve it without fanning flames. You can do it people, I believe in you.
Not at all, you see it is true that all lives should matter, but given that weird situations keep happening to black people such as this woman getting arrested and institutionalized simply because the police would not believe she was a banker owning a BMW. And since that does not really happen as much to white or asian people, we are focusing on black lives mattering for a moment.
It's good to drive responsibly. Standing up and dancing at a red light is not proper, responsible use of a vehicle.
Well first of all dear @BillyBro when you are standing still at a red light, you are not actually driving, you are standing still also known as a state... where in you are not actually in motion.... See I am repeating it for you so that there is no misunderstanding that when you are standing s.t.i.l.l., you are not in fact d.r.i.v.i.n.g.
It is after all important to know the difference of being in a car and in motion a.k.a. driving and when you are not in motion and standing still. And I am putting some emphasis on this, because you seem to proclaim a rather silly notion that when you are standing still, it would be irresponsible to dance... while you are standing still...
Yes it is not absurd at all to state that it is reasonable to arrest someone for dancing in a car while standing still, because cleeeeeeearly it is very dangerous driving to dance while standing still
A cop's duty is hard, subjected to unjust half truths like your post every day for decades.
Well in that case #blacklivesmatter is important especially because there are people who make weird excuses for the mistreatment of black people, like it is 'unresponsible' use of a vehicle to dance when you are standing still.
Comments
For now.
If you think this is so ridiculous - can you explain to me what the "white" race is? What is white culture? You can't. All that exists is a vague collection of cultures and phenotypes that bear a certain similarity or geographical origin that a certain system has decided should inherit the earth. And this is a problem.
What there ARE, are thousands of different ethnic groups and hundreds of nationalities(though the concept of a "nation" in modern terms is at least partly an imperialist construction). Dividing these into the likes of "black" and "white" is nonsensical and not based in any real science or anthropology.
The fact remains that "White" people as a supergroup are not oppressed for being white. And the majority of "White" subgroups are not oppressed, since that's largely what whiteness is. What you're describing is colourism which is not the same thing as anti-blackness. Anti-blackness is specifically based off the characterisation of Subsaharan Africans(and other dark skinned African ethnic groups) as genetically and culturally inferior. Colourism exists in most cultures(for example India and it's caste system - though in it's modern form this was partly influenced by British colonists and the imposition of darker skinned Indians as somehow more African, as well as "Dravidian" existing as less Aryan "race"), and indeed many Arab nations for example can also be quite racist in their treatment of other ethnicities. But it still doesn't change the fact that for the last few hundred years, whiteness has been the dominant global force and "black" and "brown" people largely the enslaved and the colonised. And it's modern distinction very much has it's roots in America(and a little in Europe not long before - here's a good article on it - http://www.orchestratedpulse.com/2014/08/racism-white/).
Furthermore,
"Interestingly, the first effect that the British had on the caste system was to strengthen rather than undermine it, for the British gave the Brahmans back certain special privileges which under Muslim had been withdrawn from them. On the other hand, the British legislators did not agree that the members of the lower-caste should receive greater punishment than members of the upper-caste for committing the same offense.
Under British rule, the untouchables and low-caste Indians enjoyed an improvement of their social standings. For example, with wealth and education, they could pass as members of higher castes from some distant area. The strict restrictions on social contacts became harder to enforce as members of different castes mingled increasing. The newly educated and affluence middle class in the cities mixed socially with people based on their financial position and class and not caste. Under the British, it was wealth and education, which determines a person's social status not caste."
http://www.victorianweb.org/history/empire/india/caste.html
You're freaking hilarious. BTW this all belong in the POLITICS thread, not the official statement. Moderator please move, or delete, whatever. Thank you.
It is funny in every modern white nation slavery is illegal.
This is a major reason Russia having anything to do with human rights is laughed at. It is the only white majority country with slaves. Most of which are debt slaves to the government.
Let's ignore that when the slave trade happened the slaves were sold by Africans. Slaves from Africa were usually the families of political rivals as well as entire tribes. Sold by the Africans, which still sells thier own people to Arab countries. And the majority of the slaves from the African slave trade went to the Portuguese and we're treated much more harshly than in America. (You should look into sugar cane plantations.) Which technically the Portuguese are not Caucasian, but of European Hispanic decent. Which Hispanic is the only ethnic group that consists of all skin colors in the US census.
Sorry the world's problems isn't caused by white people. It's not factual in anyway. The world's problems are caused by putting any credence on ethnic background. Skin color doesn't make a person any more or less of a person. Skin color brings no real genetic variation.
A heart attack is treated the same way between ethnic groups, barring allergies.
A chest tube is done the same way for all ethnic groups.
Any life saving procedure is done the same for all humans regardless of ethnic background.
Just seeing other ethnic backgrounds or skin colors is divisive. As well as anti unity.
Also White Supremacy is an ideology, not an action. Just because a majority in x country is white does not make the country white supremacist.
Supremacy organizations and ideologies are mocked in modern society. The ideologies are usually non sequitur filled with half truths and flat out lies. Whether it be white, black, hispanic, or women's supremacy movements. They are all part of hateful movements.
White Supremacy is not taught and hardly encouraged in modern day America. Ending true white supremacy has already happened. When it is legal for a group that is assembled peacefully (no matter how hateful thier rhetoric) can be kicked the shit out of with no legal recourse against the attackers. That is indicative that white supremacy is not tolerated.
Everyone has the same opportunities, but what you do with those is based on individual choices rather than systemic ones.
Why do you hate white people, to the point you have to demonize, pathologize, and lie about that ethnic group?
I mean I am white and I have no problem acknowledging that whiteness has existed the way she says it has.
"Ethnicity (noun) is the identification of a person with a particular racial, cultural, or religious group. Here are a few examples that will demonstrate the difference between the two. 1. 'My nationality is Italian, but my ethnicity is Caucasian.'"
http://www.softschools.com/difference/nationality_vs_ethnicity/45/
"Anthony Appiah and Naomi Zack contend that the term race cannot refer to anything real in the world, since the one thing in the world to which the term could uniquely refer—discrete, essentialist, biological races—have been proven not to exist. Zack provides an accessible summary of the racial skeptic’s argument against the biological foundations for race, sequentially summarizing the scientific rejection of essences, geography, phenotypes, post-Mendelian transmission genetics, and genealogies as possible foundations for races. Aristotelian essences, thought to ground the common characteristics of distinct species, were correctly rejected by early modern philosophers. If essences cannot even ground differences among species, then they clearly cannot ground the differences among races, which even nineteenth century racial science still understood as members of the same species. Whereas folk theories rely on geography to divide humanity into African, European, Asian, and Amerindian races, contemporary population genetics reveal the vacuity of this foundation for two reasons. First, geographically based environmental stimuli lead to continuous physical adaptations in skin, hair and bone rather than the discrete differences associated with race; and second, although mitochondrial DNA mutations provide evidence of the geographical origins of populations, these mutations do not correlate with the physical traits associated with racial groups. Similarly, phenotypes cannot ground folk theories of race: for instance, differences in skin tone are gradual, not discrete; and blood-type variations occur independently of the more visible phenotypes associated with race, such as skin color and hair texture. Race cannot be founded upon transmission genetics, since the genes transmitted from one generation to the next lead to very specific physical traits, not general racial characteristics shared by all members of a putatively racial group. And finally, genealogy cannot ground race, since clades (populations descended from a common ancestor) may have common genetic characteristics, but these need not correlate with the visible traits associated with races. Zack concludes: “Essences, geography, phenotypes, genotypes, and genealogy are the only known candidates for physical scientific bases of race. Each fails. Therefore, there is no physical scientific basis for the social racial taxonomy”.
Racial skeptics like Appiah and Zack adopt normative racial eliminativism, which recommends discarding the concept of race entirely, according to the following argument. Because of its historical genealogy, the term race can only refer to one or more discrete groups of people who alone share biologically significant genetic features. Such a monopoly on certain genetic features could only emerge within a group that practices such a high level of inbreeding that it is effectively genetically isolated. Such genetic isolation might refer to the Amish in America or to Irish Protestants, but they clearly cannot refer to those groupings of people presently subsumed under American racial census categories. Because the concept “race” can only apply to groups not typically deemed races (Amish, Irish Protestants), and because this concept cannot apply to groups typically deemed races (African Americans, Whites, Asians, Native Americans), a mismatch occurs between the concept and its typical referent. Thus, the concept of race must be eliminated due to its logical incoherence."
No way in hell was India somehow better under Indian rule. In fact, there's a lot of brutality that happened that people never even speak about. But I'd rather not get into that right now.
After it was practiced for hundred of years and white nations built their wealth on the backs of it? And after they figured out how to jig capitalism to create effective forms of slavery, especially in the global South? Who do you think drives the demand for sweat shops and chinese mega factories with suicide nets? Maybe not entirely the west, but mostly.
This is a major reason Russia having anything to do with human rights is laughed at. It is the only white majority country with slaves. Most of which are debt slaves to the government.
Um America has this too??? Seriously? How much do you know about the US Prison system? The African slave trade was nothing like racialised Chattel-based slavery. Generally, the slaves that were sold were from conquered tribes/territory, this was a very common practice throughout both Africa and Europe(Romans) at the time. Slavery was in many ways the capitalism of the time. However, Chattel style slavery was brutal and was a flat out denial of the human rights of the enslaved. Within Chattel style slavery, the slave had no actual human rights and could be killed during punishment. They were slaves until the day they died, their children would be slaves. Their very "race" was used to determine their status.
For that matter, indentured servitude also isn't compared to Chattel slavery, before people bring up the "Irish slaves" thing again. But white people conquered most of the world, so by definition they sort of are. Maybe going back a few centuries you could blame the Ottomans, or the Mongols, or someone... but by and large European colonists/imperialists are responsible for the global zeitgeist. If white people didn't CAUSE most of these problems, they at the very least had their hands in those pies. For example while homophobia isn't solely a western european construction, in it's current form it was largely alien to Africa & the Muslim world. And now look at what you have. I don't know what you're saying here? It's about institutions. Whiteness is an institution. It was created to justify the treatment of other "Races" as lesser. That system exists. It's been well documented. It's not nonsensical to put "credence" in "ethnic background". White, black, etc. aren't just about different ethnic groups and we already established this. What's anti-unity is people denying the immense amount of damage people of their background have done to the rest of the world and pushing false equivalences that get in the way of understanding where these problems come from.
This ideology is some of the worst crap in the world. I don't see skin colour! Let's just get along! Yet funnily enough you have some very specific things to claim about what white people did or didn't do. Plus - several studies have found that "colourblindness" is actually a form of racism. Feel free to google it. It's just a way of reassigning the blame. What white supremacy actually means, is the idea that whites hold some amount of inherent superiority to other races, and thus other races must work harder to prove themselves, and ultimately be subjugate to a white institution. This absolutely describes the US. Even your black president was rendered mostly toothless. Black and white supremacy are absolute incomparable because white supremacy is an actual system that exists and killed and enslaved millions of people. What do you think is an example of black supremacy, the Black Panthers? You know nothing. The KKK are responsible for far more killings than the Black Panthers(who did stuff like operating soup kitchens - for ALL poor people, and even have ties to LGBT activism), yet which organisation was forced to disband? This should tell what you want you need to know about white supremacy vs. black supremacy. It absolutely is, but in more subtle ways. Anti-SJWs don't seem able to understand any real level of social theory and just make fun of it when we try to explain basic sociological terms. When a disproportionate majority of heroes are white(cis, straight, able) men, and many groups of PoC are likely to be villains or stereotypes, how does that not send a message?
Being blatant is what's not encouraged. But that depends entirely on where you are. The Trump candidacy has shown that many people are absolutely not beyond it.. People like Milo have written several times on how "White"/western culture is simply "better". No, it hasn't. And frankly if you're not black you should absolutely not be saying this. White people like us can only help raise the voices of PoC. Dismissing and erasing their claims IS white supremacy at work. It's saying you know better about their experiences than the likes of #blacklivesmatter do. Which you don't - at all. No, they don't. There are so many articles I could pull up on this. Like for example racist housing policy, and the creation of the american middle class was very much centred on the creation of white wealth. Schools are also funded by local taxes meaning black people who are much more likely to live in poor areas literally DON'T have the same opportunities. Even with minority scholarships, and even adjusted for grades(which is unfair for the above reasons) black people STILL receive less scholarships overall. How on earth is this equality of opportunity? It's nonsense. "Why do you hate white people" is white supremacist/stormfront//pol/ speak tbh. What you're saying is the narrative that's been pushed on us for years yet you act like you're more enlightened. You just believe in silencing and subjugating black voices where I believe in signal boosting.
White is not an ethnic group. White was a distinction created in Europe and America to forward white european/american exceptionalism, Manifest Destiny etc.
I don't hate people of individual ethnic groups. I hate whiteness as a concept. I hate what makes people like you write posts like this.
Also, that definition is kind of silly because cultural groups and nationality are often the same thing. Being a part of the English cultural group, French cultural group, German cultural group. But there is no such thing as a white/caucasian cultural group.
Throwing around simplistic dictionary definitions often serves to obfuscate rather than enlighten.
For that matter, indentured servitude also isn't compared to Chattel slavery, before people bring up the "Irish slaves" thing again. But white people conquered most of the world, so by definition they sort of are. Maybe going back a few centuries you could blame the Ottomans, or the Mongols, or someone... but by and large European colonists/imperialists are responsible for the global zeitgeist. If white people didn't CAUSE most of these problems, they at the very least had their hands in those pies. For example while homophobia isn't solely a western european construction, in it's current form it was largely alien to Africa & the Muslim world. And now look at what you have. I don't know what you're saying here? It's about institutions. Whiteness is an institution. It was created to justify the treatment of other "Races" as lesser. That system exists. It's been well documented. It's not nonsensical to put "credence" in "ethnic background". White, black, etc. aren't just about different ethnic groups and we already established this. What's anti-unity is people denying the immense amount of damage people of their background have done to the rest of the world and pushing false equivalences that get in the way of understanding where these problems come from.
This ideology is some of the worst crap in the world. I don't see skin colour! Let's just get along! Yet funnily enough you have some very specific things to claim about what white people did or didn't do. Plus - several studies have found that "colourblindness" is actually a form of racism. Feel free to google it. It's just a way of reassigning the blame. What white supremacy actually means, is the idea that whites hold some amount of inherent superiority to other races, and thus other races must work harder to prove themselves, and ultimately be subjugate to a white institution. This absolutely describes the US. Even your black president was rendered mostly toothless. Black and white supremacy are absolute incomparable because white supremacy is an actual system that exists and killed and enslaved millions of people. What do you think is an example of black supremacy, the Black Panthers? You know nothing. The KKK are responsible for far more killings than the Black Panthers(who did stuff like operating soup kitchens - for ALL poor people, and even have ties to LGBT activism), yet which organisation was forced to disband? This should tell what you want you need to know about white supremacy vs. black supremacy. It absolutely is, but in more subtle ways. Anti-SJWs don't seem able to understand any real level of social theory and just make fun of it when we try to explain basic sociological terms. When a disproportionate majority of heroes are white(cis, straight, able) men, and many groups of PoC are likely to be villains or stereotypes, how does that not send a message?
Being blatant is what's not encouraged. But that depends entirely on where you are. The Trump candidacy has shown that many people are absolutely not beyond it.. People like Milo have written several times on how "White"/western culture is simply "better". No, it hasn't. And frankly if you're not black you should absolutely not be saying this. White people like us can only help raise the voices of PoC. Dismissing and erasing their claims IS white supremacy at work. It's saying you know better about their experiences than the likes of #blacklivesmatter do. Which you don't - at all. No, they don't. There are so many articles I could pull up on this. Like for example racist housing policy, and the creation of the american middle class was very much centred on the creation of white wealth. Schools are also funded by local taxes meaning black people who are much more likely to live in poor areas literally DON'T have the same opportunities. Even with minority scholarships, and even adjusted for grades(which is unfair for the above reasons) black people STILL receive less scholarships overall. How on earth is this equality of opportunity? It's nonsense. "Why do you hate white people" is white supremacist/stormfront//pol/ speak tbh. What you're saying is the narrative that's been pushed on us for years yet you act like you're more enlightened. You just believe in silencing and subjugating black voices where I believe in signal boosting.
White is not an ethnic group. White was a distinction created in Europe and America to forward white european/american exceptionalism, Manifest Destiny etc.
I don't hate people of individual ethnic groups. I hate whiteness as a concept. I hate what makes people like you write posts like this.
This was uncomfortable to read.
You *know* there's nothing more entertaining than arguing about race, sex, gender, orientation, and religion on the internet! Why do you think we're all not playing SoD right now?
http://thisiscaucasian.tumblr.com/
So there is no "technical" definition for White. Referring to all Indo-Europeans as one race is difficult and most would not be willing to admit Indians, most Persians, and certainly not Roma(who are technically more white than Indians) are "white". This also relies on the concept of "Aryan" peoples(which is also incorrect - Aryans are Iranian people, who are not typically white featured either - look at Sarah Shahi who is only half Persian but is clearly non-white, Persian features & genetics are somewhere between Arab and North Indian) and again getting back to the concept of an Aryan invasion in India which probably never happened. While Indo-European languages certainly have a common origin the concept of Indo-Europeans as a group vs. Arabs and Africans and "Mongoloid" peoples is quite nebulous. Not to mention that many Indians, Pakistanis, and of course Turkish people(Turkmen do not originate from Anatolia, which also originally spoke a PIE related language, Hittite etc.) have some "Mongoloid" heritage and it is in fact part of their identity - names such as Khan etc. are Mongoloid in origin(Gengis Khan anyone?)
So again, there is no reliable way to classify "White" people, so we cannot say they exist. The same goes for most "races". There are only individual ethnic groups and even that gets fuzzy.
People don't need reminding that white lives matter. They do need reminding that black lives do. So really what you're doing is tying to stop black people from speaking out about their oppression.
ie. if you say x about y thats
_insert bad word here_.
And in general its useless to argue with ideologues because all they are interested in doing is reiterating their talking points. aka Richard Dawkins arguing with Creationists about evolution. Success for the Creationists is creating drama and attention for the talking points because no logic can save them. As a point of fact debating with people who have no intention to debate is a useless exercise.
This is what debating with some people feels like in this debate about the writing. For instance I could make a comment about the writing and someone will equate that with me having issues with LGBT issues. No matter what I say they will just keep repeating that talking point again and again. So I put it to you forum goers that this is deliberate. The Kotaku article was flamebait designed to cause a reaction which it got and the rest you can see for yourselves.
*For instance the all lives matter vs black lives matter is a non-sequitur and does not follow the logical conclusion from such statements. Its a political talking point and puts people against each other needlessly for political purposes.
Or prove that you can debate the issues sensibly. Abandon the talking points and get into the minutiae of writing and the various elements that can improve it without fanning flames. You can do it people, I believe in you.
It is after all important to know the difference of being in a car and in motion a.k.a. driving and when you are not in motion and standing still. And I am putting some emphasis on this, because you seem to proclaim a rather silly notion that when you are standing still, it would be irresponsible to dance... while you are standing still...
Yes it is not absurd at all to state that it is reasonable to arrest someone for dancing in a car while standing still, because cleeeeeeearly it is very dangerous driving to dance while standing still Well in that case #blacklivesmatter is important especially because there are people who make weird excuses for the mistreatment of black people, like it is 'unresponsible' use of a vehicle to dance when you are standing still.