Can the oppressed be racist to the oppressors?

[shoz999]

There is nothing to understand. You can examine the facts of the situations and possible key factors leading to the incidents but painting it as "he went through X so that's why this happens". Examining a persons actions and past can be a good way to examine their overall psych but to "understand where a person comes from" is basically having empathy for them. Call it what is. It's almost how people try to excuse school shooters as "oh well they were bullied and that's why they went on a rampage". You can acknowledge the individual was bullied without trying to use that as a scapegoat as to why the events occurred. I'm a very understanding person but let's not pretend "understanding is key" when in reality it's just acknowledging these people made terrible choices by their own will. Understanding Hitler and Jackson isn't going to stop future events; understanding why we shouldn't allow these terrible people in power is important. What good is understanding Jackson if he still caused a genocide? He should of never been in power.

Your talking how people misunderstand the situation, hence scapegoats, and point the blame elsewhere in favor of an agenda based on what little facts they can find right? Such as how people historically blame violent acts towards shakespearian plays, then movies, then music and now video games even though history has consistently disproven this agenda. I think I get what you're saying but I can assure you that's not the kind of understanding I'm talking about and that I wasn't pretending. Assessing the issue by looking at all the factors you can find is a key element to solving a problem. Political power is important but I don't think it's everything. For your examples of Hitler and Jackson, I believe your talking about what good is knowledge compared to common sense right? People are obviously not going to vote for another Andrew Jackson in this day and age right? It's common sense that such a figure should not be voted in office so it's not going to happen right? If that's what your talking about, common sense, then I don't know about that.

 

[Gamzee Makara]

How is anyone meant to debate or defend against this? 'You sound racist' is not an argument.



Yes, slavery is evil. Black slavery in the US also has long-term socioeconomic consequences that has both resulted in and reinforced systemic oppression. Equally abhorrently, explicit and conscious individual racism still exists and still uses the same language associated with a practice abolished over a century ago, which baffles and disturbs me.



Yes, that was my point. These comparisons are nigh-universal when it comes to oppressing an ethnicity, race, culture, sect etc.

I think the reason threads like this don't work is because of the assumption that any debate on this issue is a challenge to the common (and correct) premise that systemic racism exists and is a problem. People can make repeated posts saying 'systemic racism exists and is bad' but because they engage in a fringe and, frankly, somewhat academic debate around precise definitions their arguments are assumed to come from an evil place.

A "Debate Forum" thread is not a "DEBATE ME" thread.

And now you're backpedaling on your "Reverse racism exists so racism is cancelled" stuff, so you're bad at "Debate Me" spiel, too.

I know what kind of person I'm dealing with.

 

[Auraninja]

I thought Bananarama hit on what I mostly just scraped on, that there is individual racism and systematic racism. Sure, you can have one black person dislike a person for being white, but systematic racism goes deeper. The history of minority suppression runs deep within America, and back then, you had all different ways to lower them in society. You had Jim Crow, "separate yet equal", Grandfather clause, poll tax, among countless other ways to subjugate blacks. There are similar and different ways other races have been treated. With what bobjr. was saying, the Irish were treated so poorly, that they were called white (n-word). It is a horrible aspect of culture, but we must do our best to be better than what history has shown.

Moreover, some of my very recent ancestors who were just horrible people, and the rest of my family distanced from them. I also live in a Southern state, and I had ancestors fight in the Confederate Army, which fought on ill-faith. Apart from that, Southern education can sometimes be wishy-washy about how they talk about the Civil War. You have the question, "Why did the South fight for in the Civil War?" and you sometimes get, "states rights" or "economic hardship". I think we should just admit the fault of Southern Confederates and move on.

 

[bobjr]

Also don't take that to mean I think Irish oppression was equal or worse than black oppression, the general point is that they weren't seen as white, and therefore inferior by default.

Basically John Brown was right and was one of the few people who could be argued was a hero and terrorist at the same time.

 

[shoz999]

This is kind of bugging me since this thread was made but what's the point of this thread? This is supposed to be a debate thread but to be honest. I see nothing much here to debate other than the obvious.

 

[bobjr]

The hope is that participation here will make posters better informed, develop more refined personal ideologies, be better able to argue their positions in real life, and find ways to put their positions into practice with real world activism. Post in good faith, and assume others are posting in good faith: Playing devil’s advocate is tiresome; post things you genuinely believe or are curious about.

 

[Auraninja]

Also don't take that to mean I think Irish oppression was equal or worse than black oppression, the general point is that they weren't seen as white, and therefore inferior by default.

Oh no, I wasn't going on that limb. I was grouping it in my first paragraph, where I talked about a system of suppression.
There has been a history of anti-immigration, where immigrants were treated poorly and distanced from the majority race.

 

[shoz999]

The hope is that participation here will make posters better informed, develop more refined personal ideologies, be better able to argue their positions in real life, and find ways to put their positions into practice with real world activism. Post in good faith, and assume others are posting in good faith: Playing devil’s advocate is tiresome; post things you genuinely believe or are curious about.

I see, genuine beliefs huh? I don't like to get into detail, gets tiresome, time-consuming and pretty depressing at times lol.

So I guess I'll just say this since the sole focus of this thread appears to be dealing with America's own racism judging by everyone here. I hope I live long enough to see the day that America creates a society so safe and free that children as young as age 5 can freely walk from one end of the continent to the other without their parents fearing them going missing, that it isn't considered child neglect but is encouraged by other adults, that it is embraced as part of the culture. The day you guys realize America's culture has evolved to that point is the day you realize that racism in America is on the verge of destruction along with other issues such as hunger and homelessness...

 

[Sadib]

When I made this topic, it ended with a discussion whether Jewish people or white.

 

[bobjr]

A lot of that is because race/ethnicity/religion can tie together in weird ways. As long as you’re not excluding Jewish people from White people for some negative quality to imply they aren’t good enough that’s fine, since whiteness used as that scale is bad.

Even Ben Franklin had a lot to say about those “swarthy Germans” in 1750, it’s a cycle in a lot of ways.

 

[Sadib]

A lot of that is because race/ethnicity/religion can tie together in weird ways. As long as you’re not excluding Jewish people from White people for some negative quality to imply they aren’t good enough that’s fine, since whiteness used as that scale is bad.

Even Ben Franklin had a lot to say about those “swarthy Germans” in 1750, it’s a cycle in a lot of ways.

Well, the discussion became about whether antisemitism is considered racism, since Jewish people are usually white.

 

[WalesNote]

Race = nothing to do with culture or crap like that. Because race is a scientific thing. Not difficult to understand.

Racism = discrimination against others because of their race. Also not difficult to understand.

 

[bobjr]

If race had nothing to do with culture then why is American culture about accepting other cultures as white when they’ve been proven “acceptable?” since before the country was founded?

Culture and race are intertwined enough where they effect each other, and it’s exactly why there’s often difficultly understanding it.

 

[MotostokeOnTrent]

What makes a culture 'white'?

 

[bobjr]

In the context of America what the founding fathers found to be smarter and more good than the other races, but cultures can join if they prove they’re worthy. It’s a sociological thing that won’t get one set definition.

 

[Auraninja]

Well, the discussion became about whether antisemitism is considered racism, since Jewish people are usually white.

I really hope this doesn't come across the wrong way, but isn't the Jewish subsection a close lineage?

Now I'm not saying that the population is "homogeneous", but there are some genetically associated traits that many people of the Jewish faith have.

It's sort of related to racism against Muslims, though Muslims tend to live or have come from the Middle East and similar places.

If such is the case, then yes, you can easily be racist against racial subsections.

 

[Sadib]

It's sort of related to racism against Muslims, though Muslims tend to live or have come from the Middle East and similar places.

Muslim isn't a race.

 

[MotostokeOnTrent]

I think antisemitism became a topic last time around because it highlights some of the issues that arise when you try to export 'whiteness' as a concept outside of the US. Many Jews have white skin and are generally highly-educated, with higher-than-average earnings and good jobs - factors that seem to be associated with 'whiteness' - but they remain one of the most persecuted groups on the planet. What was perhaps the worst event in human history was inflicted on a broadly-successful group of white people (regardless of whether they were religious practitioners or not), which suggests 'whiteness' analysis looks pretty ropey outside of a US context.

Muslim isn't a race.

Not strictly speaking, no, but prejudice against people from Muslim-majority countries or cultures is very clearly a thing (which also speaks to how closely Islam is tied to cultural identity and systems of government). 'Islamophobia' might not be a perfect word given how it's entirely legitimate to be afraid of the tenets of just about any religion (especially Islam) but we all know what the word really means well enough that it's perfectly functional.

 

[Auraninja]

Muslim isn't a race.

I think you missed the point of what I was trying to say.

To quote myself in another thread:

Islamophobia gets into racism territory. If someone looks and talks like a Muslim, then they will probably still be discriminated against.

 

[SBaby]

To answer the main question, it depends on who you consider to be the oppressed. Everyone nowadays is going to have their own opinion on who's being oppressed and who's the oppressor, especially with different countries having different peoples that have the advantage at the time. So all I can say is it depends. It's not the best answer, but it's the only answer I can think of that at least covers most bases.