Gammon is not racist

[littlebabyjesus]

imperialism obviously isn't the whole story, although the nazi vilification of slavs (as preparation for setter-colonialism in eastern europe) didn't come from nowhere and isn't entirely unrelated, although it is also in the interest of the media barons to demonise minorities instead of the bourgeoisie, and to promote fascism instead paying slightly higher taxes on their inherited slave labour. I don't think racism as we talk about it is separable from colonialism, capitalism, imperialism, slavery, genocide (Japan, a fascist ethnostate, has many problems with racism particularly against those brutalised by the empire) although it has never been a consistent or coherent concept - the racial categories we think in terms of, similar to those on the census, would not exist without this history and there have been changes in who has been racialised as conditions have changed. Why do white people exist? I have asked this several times. White people obviously didn't exist in ancient greece, although the inferior races were easily identifiable by the fact that they were enslaved by or threatened the dominance of rich cunts like Plato. White people, as a master race, didn't exist before capitalism and the rise of the bourgeoisie (if they'd been black it would have been different obviously) and european colonialism, settler-colonialism in the americas in particular. White people are those not worthy of violence by their very nature (except as traitors or degenerates) this is why there are any white people. This is why the Iraq war is no big deal and supporters are still allowed to exist. Why British people love that evil genocidal turd Churchill. Why Trump won and why white liberals think Hillary is a progressive feminist. Why the white billionaire class has already chosen fascism and genocide as their solution to the human problem.

You're talking proximate and distal causes, essentially, and I go a distance with you on that. Sometimes the proximate cause is the powerful driver, though. So prejudice against immigrants occurs the world over, as I say, normally because the immigrant is from a poorer country - Haitians in the Dominican Republic, or North Koreans in South Korea.

I think your take on ancient history is somewhat too rosy, though. You're right to see the roots of racism as we see it today in colonialism, but the 'othering' of the out group is something with as long a history as the history of humans. And the treating of a subjugated group as sub-human likewise. Spartans killing helots for sport, for example.

 

[lucillemara]

Ha. Maybe.

I've no idea what they're arguing TBH. Or to be precise, with whom. They've got a point amidst the misdirected ranting but no poster here really fits their target profile.

perhaps I am not someone people know from years ago, it may be a stretch but
and sometimes I am just arguing against tendencies and implications, I don't think this is dishonest in the context mentions of Muslim rapists to "debunk" white supremacy (and patriarchy by the by -is maggot an MRA?)

Just to clarify, whilst you disagree with the idea that black people can't be racist per se, you do believe that black people can't be racist towards white people?

black people calling white people honky isn't racist, it may be rude or abusive depending on context. targeting specific white ethnic groups (not "white people") can be racist although context matters (a black person saying "mick" to irish americans engaging in a pogrom isn't racist. saying the same thing to an irish person over whom they have violent institutional power would be)

btw I know my account of racism, whiteness, colonialism etc is reductionist, incomplete, not universal in time and place, and so on - but I think it's better than "racism is when people are mean to people from a different background" the kind of shit that gets gammons frothing about the anti-white agenda of Diane Abbott, the kind of identity politics decried when done by minorities. it's also class based and doesn't reduce class to another "axis of oppression" or whatever, so I am only ignoring class if working class identity is more important than socioeconomic positionality (owen smith is working class because he makes dick jokes and doesn't like fancy coffee, who cares who he robs to make a living? people calling me a misogynist are bourgeois because the only feminists I know write for the guardian and new statesman)

 

[littlebabyjesus]

perhaps I am not someone people know from years ago, it may be a stretch but
and sometimes I am just arguing against tendencies and implications, I don't think this is dishonest in the context mentions of Muslim rapists to "debunk" white supremacy (and patriarchy by the by -is maggot an MRA?)



black people calling white people honky isn't racist, it may be rude or abusive depending on context. targeting specific white ethnic groups (not "white people") can be racist although context matters (a black person saying "mick" to irish americans engaging in a pogrom isn't racist. saying the same thing to an irish person over whom they have violent institutional power would be)

btw I know my account of racism, whiteness, colonialism etc is reductionist, incomplete, not universal in time and place, and so on - but I think it's better than "racism is when people are mean to people from a different background" the kind of shit that gets gammons frothing about the anti-white agenda of Diane Abbott, the kind of identity politics decried when done by minorities. it's also class based and doesn't reduce class to another "axis of oppression" or whatever, so I am only ignoring class if working class identity is more important than socioeconomic positionality (owen smith is working class because he makes dick jokes and doesn't like fancy coffee, who cares who he robs to make a living? people calling me a misogynist are bourgeois because the only feminists I know write for the guardian and new statesman)

Hmmm. Ignoring your self-conscious attempts to be 'edgy', is the racial account of history of the Nation of Islam (which identifies and targets a generalised 'white' ethnic group) racist?

 

[Athos]

black people calling white people honky isn't racist, it may be rude or abusive depending on context. targeting specific white ethnic groups (not "white people") can be racist although context matters (a black person saying "mick" to irish americans engaging in a pogrom isn't racist. saying the same thing to an irish person over whom they have violent institutional power would be)

I'm glad that you appear to be adding some nuance to to your earlier position.

 

[lucillemara]

lucillemara What do you aim to achieve by posting here? You seem to be expending a lot of time and energy on people you clearly hold in complete contempt and who you clearly have no desire to persuade. Seems a bit unhealthy to me.

I'm banned from twitter (so the truth comes out) and since I can't yell at nazis (who got me banned by mass reporting) and #FBPE cunts (hey jeremy who cares about yemen what about brexit?) I can yell at the parts of the left i think are shit, although I don't think there are many tankies or dengists here unfortunately- and I thought my posts would not be as controversial as they seem to be although I didn't expect universal agreement. now I'm just killing time because I can't sleep and I do actually care about this shit despite being far from the best messenger
I also had a fairly positive opinion of this place for some reason, based on lurking a bit in the mid 00s when I was even greener

 

[lizzieloo]

I'm dreading the day I get unfairly called a "gammon", being white, male and in my 40s. I'm also losing hair but can't exactly help male pattern baldness. And yes, my face is often red. Burning all these crosses produces a lot of heat.

My husband is white, bald, not fat but we have an unplanned staffy and a van.

Doomed.

 

[Athos]

I'm banned from twitter (so the truth comes out) and since I can't yell at nazis (who got me banned by mass reporting) and #FBPE cunts (hey jeremy who cares about yemen what about brexit?) I can yell at the parts of the left i think are shit, although I don't think there are many tankies or dengists here unfortunately- and I thought my posts would not be as controversial as they seem to be although I didn't expect universal agreement. now I'm just killing time because I can't sleep and I do actually care about this shit despite being far from the best messenger
I also had a fairly positive opinion of this place for some reason, based on lurking a bit in the mid 00s when I was even greener

I don't think your posts are particularly controversial (despite your efforts to be edgy); they're just misconceived and poorly expressed. It's a shame you were banned from twitter, as I think you'd do better there.

 

[lucillemara]

Isn't this the important point here? And structural power differentials operate at many different levels, often at the same time. So you can't produce a full unified general theory of racism in which its definition contains its causes. You shouldn't even try - all you end up doing is producing generalisations that don't work.

And in case that wasn't clear, I do not seek to say that imperialism is irrelevant, far from it. You're not the only one being misunderstood here.

My GUF is wrong in a literal sense and mine is simplistic and based on secondhand ideas and half-digested theory and a eurocentric bias. I never intended to formulate it as definitive but the Rotherham shit (which I am right about) probably made me more confident than I should be. I'm sure there are better ways of formulating a definition of modern racism which isn't monocausal. But does this criticism apply to all definitions, models, taxonomies, etc or only poorly formulated ones? Is there a more appropriate way of talking about racism that doesn't flatten power differentials- if they are impossible to capture in the abstract should we not try at all? (if the answer is I personally shouldn't try until I know more fine, but I'll still yell at white lives matter or save our girls type shit)

I do generalise a lot and I probably don't make it clear enough who or what I am responding to which hasn't helped my case

You're talking proximate and distal causes, essentially, and I go a distance with you on that. Sometimes the proximate cause is the powerful driver, though. So prejudice against immigrants occurs the world over, as I say, normally because the immigrant is from a poorer country - Haitians in the Dominican Republic, or North Koreans in South Korea.

I think your take on ancient history is somewhat too rosy, though. You're right to see the roots of racism as we see it today in colonialism, but the 'othering' of the out group is something with as long a history as the history of humans. And the treating of a subjugated group as sub-human likewise. Spartans killing helots for sport, for example.

this is and the above are the best criticism I've had here - any line you draw will have to be arbitrary (and obviously othering like this is still bad whether or not we call it racism) and there are grey zones which I have no idea how to approach. I think colonialism is a good distal cause which makes sense of a lot of things but it is not the only one as I may have implied, and definitely I am ignorant about racism and ethnicity in most parts of the world and here too

Hmmm. Ignoring your self-conscious attempts to be 'edgy', is the racial account of history of the Nation of Islam (which identifies and targets a generalised 'white' ethnic group) racist?

yes it's racist, it essentialises race and demonises Jews, it is "racist" against white people in the colloquial sense but I don't think that's much of an issue unless there's stuff I don't know about (it is racist against black people though)

 

[lucillemara]

I don't think your posts are particularly controversial (despite your efforts to be edgy); they're just misconceived and poorly expressed. It's a shame you were banned from twitter, as I think you'd do better there.

I did

 

[Baronage-Phase]

mostly rant but I answer questions if they are in good faith or particularly awful
oh so now implicature does exist and everything isn't its literal meaning. yeah "race is based on material conditions" is basically the same as "fuck class" I guess
imperialism obviously isn't the whole story, although the nazi vilification of slavs (as preparation for setter-colonialism in eastern europe) didn't come from nowhere and isn't entirely unrelated, although it is also in the interest of the media barons to demonise minorities instead of the bourgeoisie, and to promote fascism instead paying slightly higher taxes on their inherited slave labour. I don't think racism as we talk about it is separable from colonialism, capitalism, imperialism, slavery, genocide (Japan, a fascist ethnostate, has many problems with racism particularly against those brutalised by the empire) although it has never been a consistent or coherent concept - the racial categories we think in terms of, similar to those on the census, would not exist without this history and there have been changes in who has been racialised as conditions have changed. Why do white people exist? I have asked this several times. White people obviously didn't exist in ancient greece, although the inferior races were easily identifiable by the fact that they were enslaved by or threatened the dominance of rich cunts like Plato. White people, as a master race, didn't exist before capitalism and the rise of the bourgeoisie (if they'd been black it would have been different obviously) and european colonialism, settler-colonialism in the americas in particular. White people are those not worthy of violence by their very nature (except as traitors or degenerates) this is why there are any white people. This is why the Iraq war is no big deal and supporters are still allowed to exist. Why British people love that evil genocidal turd Churchill. Why Trump won and why white liberals think Hillary is a progressive feminist. Why the white billionaire class has already chosen fascism and genocide as their solution to the human problem.

You ask why white people exist.
White people exist because of 2 mutations... their skin became white on moving from hotter parts of the world to live in colder parts of the world.
Basically, humans travelled in nomadic groups all over the world before greed and borders. ..and as they settled in colder climates their genetic make up changed....and indeed their originally lactose intolerant genes changed too to make them tolerant so they could drink milk.
A total of 5 genetic mutations happened. But only one had to do with skin lightning.
The likely explanation for the pigmentation genes is to maximize vitamin D synthesis. People living in northern latitudes often don’t get enough UV to synthesize vitamin D in their skin so natural selection has favored two genetic solutions to that problem—evolving pale skin that absorbs UV more efficiently or favoring lactose tolerance to be able to digest the sugars and vitamin D naturally found in milk.

So....Geography.
It's always neglected when people talk about history etc but it is the reason for a lot of historical change.
Genetic mutation occurs to accommodate living in a particular geographical location. .
More recently geography became about "man made borders"....the problem with borders is that people cant move freely anymore.
And humans, being driven by greed tend toward invasions. Empires are built because of borders and greed...regardless of skin colour. (Not all empires are white historically or geographically) Humans throughout history, of all coloured skin, tend towards being greedy and power hungry. They want the greener grass...the better water...the gold and raw materials...they invade and grab and take what they can.

As of today, there are 49 dictatorships in the world (19 in Sub-Saharan Africa, 12 in the Middle East and North Africa, 8 in Asia-Pacific, 7 in Eurasia 2 in Americas and 1 in Europe).
Possibly one in the US too.
Greed and power corrupt and enslave those who are powerless regardless of skin pigmentation.

Your point about class is probably right. I look at it as more about power, money and greed...because humans can move through class systems to an extent when they garner wealth and with wealth comes power.

If humans had remained as nomads with free movement throughout a borderless world... think how different things would be now?

 

[A380]

 

[Athos]

You ask why white people exist.
White people exist because of 2 mutations... their skin became white on moving from hotter parts of the world to live in colder parts of the world.
Basically, humans travelled in nomadic groups all over the world before greed and borders. ..and as they settled in colder climates their genetic make up changed....and indeed their originally lactose intolerant genes changed too to make them tolerant so they could drink milk.
A total of 5 genetic mutations happened. But only one had to do with skin lightning.
The likely explanation for the pigmentation genes is to maximize vitamin D synthesis. People living in northern latitudes often don’t get enough UV to synthesize vitamin D in their skin so natural selection has favored two genetic solutions to that problem—evolving pale skin that absorbs UV more efficiently or favoring lactose tolerance to be able to digest the sugars and vitamin D naturally found in milk.

So....Geography.
It's always neglected when people talk about history etc but it is the reason for a lot of historical change.
Genetic mutation occurs to accommodate living in a particular geographical location. .
More recently geography became about "man made borders"....the problem with borders is that people cant move freely anymore.
And humans, being driven by greed tend toward invasions. Empires are built because of borders and greed...regardless of skin colour. (Not all empires are white historically or geographically) Humans throughout history, of all coloured skin, tend towards being greedy and power hungry. They want the greener grass...the better water...the gold and raw materials...they invade and grab and take what they can.

As of today, there are 49 dictatorships in the world (19 in Sub-Saharan Africa, 12 in the Middle East and North Africa, 8 in Asia-Pacific, 7 in Eurasia 2 in Americas and 1 in Europe).
Possibly one in the US too.
Greed and power corrupt and enslave those who are powerless regardless of skin pigmentation.

Your point about class is probably right. I look at it as more about power, money and greed...because humans can move through class systems to an extent when they garner wealth and with wealth comes power.

If humans had remained as nomads with free movement throughout a borderless world... think how different things would be now?

I think you're missing their point, unless you think there's been a change of geography or a genetic mutation very recently which allowed the Irish to move from being non- white to white.

 

[Baronage-Phase]

I think you're missing their point, unless you think there's been a change of geography or a genetic mutation very recently which allowed the Irish to move from being non- white to white.

Coincidentally...
There has been a geographic change in Ireland in the past 100 years and it sure has effected change for the better for Irish people. No longer slaves and no longer treated like shite by a powerful greedy empire..

 

[Athos]

Coincidentally...
There has been a geographic change in Ireland in the past 100 years and it sure has effected change for the better for Irish people. No longer slaves and no longer treated like shite by a powerful greedy empire..

And that's what made them white?

 

[SpineyNorman]

I'm banned from twitter (so the truth comes out) and since I can't yell at nazis (who got me banned by mass reporting) and #FBPE cunts (hey jeremy who cares about yemen what about brexit?) I can yell at the parts of the left i think are shit, although I don't think there are many tankies or dengists here unfortunately- and I thought my posts would not be as controversial as they seem to be although I didn't expect universal agreement. now I'm just killing time because I can't sleep and I do actually care about this shit despite being far from the best messenger
I also had a fairly positive opinion of this place for some reason, based on lurking a bit in the mid 00s when I was even greener

Hate to point it out, but it's not so much the content of your posts as your attitude that's pissing people off. Your posts are full of uncontroversial shit everyone already knows only couched in wannabe academic wankspeak. Sure, you throw in the odd bit of trendy bollocks to keep us on our toes but the most notable thing about you is the banality of your posts, they're not edgy and controversial as you clearly want to believe.

 

[Baronage-Phase]

And that's what made them white?

Did I say that?
Hmm

 

[SpineyNorman]

I don't think your posts are particularly controversial (despite your efforts to be edgy); they're just misconceived and poorly expressed. It's a shame you were banned from twitter, as I think you'd do better there.

Ouch

Wish I'd seen this before I made my post, now I look like I copied the idea

 

[likesfish]

My husband is white, bald, not fat but we have an unplanned staffy and a van.

Doomed.

Your obviously not feeding him enough eat more ginisters*

Offical snack of gammon and taste tested on iraqi mongeese

 

[Athos]

Did I say that?
Hmm

Did I say you said that? I was asking the question. Because the example of the Irish recently becoming white doesn't really for with your idea of whiteness being genetics and geography (which sounds a bit too blood and soil for me). Race comes from racism, not the other way around.

 

[Athos]

Fools seldom differ!

 

[Poi E]

Enjoying these new contributions.

 

[Baronage-Phase]

Did I say you said that? I was asking the question. Because the example of the Irish recently becoming white doesn't really for with your idea of whiteness being genetics and geography (which sounds a bit too blood and soil for me). Race comes from racism, not the other way around.

I pointed out that humans moved freely around the world for thousands of years...that power and greed changed a nomadic way to a land grabbing border declaring world which in turn led to invasions...driven by greed...and a desire for power and wealth and control.

My basic point is that REGARDLESS of skin colour power and greed lead to enslavement.
The Irish were treated as slaves to an empire run on power and greed. Viewed as inferior and worthy of ridicule and hate...and pretty much left to starve and die less than 150 yrs ago. My grandmother retold stories that were accounts of her own mother's siblings dying from starvation.
The Irish skin colour had fuck all to do with the way they were treated. They were expendible slaves used to feed an empire that was based on power and greed. They were viewed as an inferior and uneducated race by that power. They were left to die so that the tiny parcels of land they occupied / rented would be freed up.
Racism and enslavement of all kinds is caused by power and greed.

 

[Athos]

I pointed out that humans moved freely around the world for thousands of years...that power and greed changed a nomadic way to a land grabbing border declaring world which in turn led to invasions...driven by greed...and a desire for power and wealth and control.

My basic point is that REGARDLESS of skin colour power and greed lead to enslavement.
The Irish were treated as slaves to an empire run on power and greed. Viewed as inferior and worthy of ridicule and hate.
Racism is caused by power and greed.

I'm not sure about the historical accuracy of an era of global travel in a borderless world.

But, regardless of that, if your point is that material interests are the cause of oppression, of which racism (which, in turn, creates race) is one example, then I don't think we're disagreeing about much.

 

[Athos]

The Irish skin colour had fuck all to do with the way they were treated.

Exactly. The reason they weren't considered white wasn't the colour of their skin. Which is why I took issue with your post about whiteness being genetic.

 

[Pickman's model]

Coincidentally...
There has been a geographic change in Ireland in the past 100 years and it sure has effected change for the better for Irish people. No longer slaves and no longer treated like shite by a powerful greedy empire..

just by greedy powerful corporations

 

[danny la rouge]

Hate to point it out, but it's not so much the content of your posts as your attitude that's pissing people off. Your posts are full of uncontroversial shit everyone already knows only couched in wannabe academic wankspeak. Sure, you throw in the odd bit of trendy bollocks to keep us on our toes but the most notable thing about you is the banality of your posts, they're not edgy and controversial as you clearly want to believe.

Precisely this. Right from your arrival, lucillemara , people were telling you you were arguing with positions nobody here holds. For you to keep on spewing out reams and reams* of the same is wearing, and that’s why people aren’t spreading palm fronds in your path.



(*Note: even our references are to old technology. So if you’ve got new stuff you’ve found, we’d probably be interested in hearing it as long as you don’t call us Nazis).

 

[danny la rouge]

Is there a more appropriate way of talking about racism that doesn't flatten power differentials-

Have you read Racecraft by the Fields sisters? It’s a book and approach that’s appreciated by many here. Have a look at it if you don’t already know it.

https://thecharnelhouse.org/wp-cont...t-the-soul-of-inequality-in-american-life.pdf

 

[8ball]

Exactly. The reason they weren't considered white wasn't the colour of their skin. Which is why I took issue with your post about whiteness being genetic.

Yes, let’s not conflate biological descriptions with what we are talking about here.

It’s a vast oversimplification to put light skin down to 2 mutations in any case.

 

[Baronage-Phase]

Exactly. The reason they weren't considered white wasn't the colour of their skin. Which is why I took issue with your post about whiteness being genetic.

The Irish were considered as inferior regardless of the fact that their oppressors knew what colour their skin was. Their whiteness was irrelevant. Power and greed were the reason for their subjugation.

 

[Baronage-Phase]

It’s a vast oversimplification to put light skin down to 2 mutations in any case.

Why don't you check that out for yourself....before you trash it.