Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
soz, i missed that
Gammon is not racist
- Thread starter likesfish
- Start date
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
yeh he's a man with much to be modest about
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Fucking ada. Because racially abusing someone is a racist action. Striking back at a violently abusive husband is a violent action although it may not be an abusive one.
Get it? See post 221 again if you're still struggling.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
Used pretty much interchangeably.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
Unless they're white, I believe.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
Accoring to dixkheads and party hacks.
lucillemara
Member
people need to read "the history of white people" and "how the irish became white".
The Irish were always white, as inconvenient as that is to your hypotheses.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
Had this argument with a super-lefty many years back - it was a point of dogma. I can understand where it comes from in terms of power analysis, but when it becomes dogma it becomes useful only for identifying fellow members of the right-on tribe.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
You need to read a third book.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
No, you are just showing you dont get the distinction between racism and racial prejudice. You may not agree, but it is pretty dishonest, even by your standards, to pretend you refuse to recognise it.
Funny thing about this thread, is you are probably the biggest Gammon on the boards.
ElizabethofYork
Old Crone
FFS.
I always find the liberal tendency to place all non whites into the category of victimhood, regardless of their position in society, to be a racist position.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
My god! Talk about a fucking swerve
I can tell you're getting rattled now because the ad hominems are coming out and this is what you always do when you're getting your arse handed to you.
Let's try this one again though: If an Indian racially abuses a black man and the black man responds by calling the Indian a paki, has the black man been racist too or just the Indian?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
No swerves at all, I am sticking to the point I made, you agreed with, but couldn't follow through logically. Logic isn't really your strong point.My god! Talk about a fucking swerve
I can tell you're getting rattled now because the ad hominems are coming out and this is what you always do when you're getting your arse handed to you.
Let's try this one again though: If an Indian racially abuses a black man and the black man responds by calling the Indian a paki, has the black man been racist too or just the Indian?
You have failed to offer any argument against my definition (that racism is racial prejudice PLUS power), you just blather on. Same as always. It is kinda funny.
You've also failed to notice that in calling you a gammon, I must be using 'gammon' on a way that doesn't refer to white folk. Because it doesn't, necessarily. Because it isn't racist.
Try thinking your arguments through, they might make sense then.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Saying that over and over again doesn't make it any less nonsense. And you don't really think it's funny do you? You're sitting there absolutely fucking fuming while studiously avoiding a question that'll sink you (again) however you try to answer it!
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
you might try "nothing but the same old story" by Liz Curtis
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
I'm somewhat conflicted about what I think about this racism/power debate. Below I've sketched some of the pros/cons (as I see it) of each position. Still not fully sure which view I find more convincing on the whole. I've tended to the view that under present conditions people racialised as white cannot be victims of racism (although they can be victims of prejudice and discrimination of various kinds) but I'm not wedded to this view.
----
Power Independent Definition (PID) (i.e. discrimination or prejudice based on race)
Pros
* Transparency - Comports with 'common sense' understanding of racism
* Parsimony - easy to understand and apply
* Inclusivity - doesn't exclude anybody
* Consistency - applies a single standard for all races
Cons
* False Equivalence - the prej/discrim that dominant and marginalised racialised groups is radically different, requiring different labels.
* Individualistic - (tends to) fixate on the individual rather than social systems as the loci of racism
* Idealist - (tends to) prioritise psychological phenomena over historical/material factors
* Deflationary - by including fairly inconsequential forms of prej/discrim within the definition, the seriousness of racism is undermined
Power Dependent Definition (PDD) (e.g. "racism = prejudice + power")
Pros
* more or less the inverse of the cons for PID
Cons
* more or less the inverse of the pros for PID
-----
Thoughts?
Perhaps one way of preserving the benefits of each position whilst mitigating each's weaknesses would be to distinguish between 'individual' racism on the one hand and 'institutional' and 'systemic' racism on the other. Maybe we could accept that individual racism is a power neutral concept whereas institutional and systemic racism are tied to particular power relations such that white people under present conditions cannot be victims of these sorts of racism? Then again, there is still a lingering worry that there is still too much collapsing going on in the individual context. Is a white person calling a black person the N word even remotely the same as a black person calling a white person a honky or a cracker? They seem so far apart to me in terms of their seriousness that using the same word for both just feels wrong.
----
Power Independent Definition (PID) (i.e. discrimination or prejudice based on race)
Pros
* Transparency - Comports with 'common sense' understanding of racism
* Parsimony - easy to understand and apply
* Inclusivity - doesn't exclude anybody
* Consistency - applies a single standard for all races
Cons
* False Equivalence - the prej/discrim that dominant and marginalised racialised groups is radically different, requiring different labels.
* Individualistic - (tends to) fixate on the individual rather than social systems as the loci of racism
* Idealist - (tends to) prioritise psychological phenomena over historical/material factors
* Deflationary - by including fairly inconsequential forms of prej/discrim within the definition, the seriousness of racism is undermined
Power Dependent Definition (PDD) (e.g. "racism = prejudice + power")
Pros
* more or less the inverse of the cons for PID
Cons
* more or less the inverse of the pros for PID
-----
Thoughts?
Perhaps one way of preserving the benefits of each position whilst mitigating each's weaknesses would be to distinguish between 'individual' racism on the one hand and 'institutional' and 'systemic' racism on the other. Maybe we could accept that individual racism is a power neutral concept whereas institutional and systemic racism are tied to particular power relations such that white people under present conditions cannot be victims of these sorts of racism? Then again, there is still a lingering worry that there is still too much collapsing going on in the individual context. Is a white person calling a black person the N word even remotely the same as a black person calling a white person a honky or a cracker? They seem so far apart to me in terms of their seriousness that using the same word for both just feels wrong.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Against this sort of pedantry I cannot compete
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Oooh a sneaky edit. I nearly missed that.
You're really struggling now fella.
This might hold a bit of water if I had at any point suggested that use of the term was always racist. Of course I've actually said something quite different.
You're really struggling now fella.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I'm not fuming at all, i think you'll find that is projection. Why would I fume at a bog standard bit of liberal misunderstanding? you haven't offered any argument against my position, you merely restate yours.Saying that over and over again doesn't make it any less nonsense. And you don't really think it's funny do you? You're sitting there absolutely fucking fuming while studiously avoiding a question that'll sink you (again) however you try to answer it!
lucillemara
Member
so you're a racial platonist? why do you think white exists as a category?
is there a single non-white person in the country who has not experienced racism, regardless of class? this is just an acknowledgement our racial ideology is white supremacy. because of our history and relations with the people colonised. when relations change our ideas about race change. it is never fixed and can't be abstracted away from what is actually happening in the world. to flatten racism to just any prejudice between "races" means the sociohistorical context and power dynamics are lost.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I apologise for attempting to clarify a point, although I recognise that that is waste of time with you.
"It's a pejorative term for white people often used by some PoC, particularly youngsters. " - that was your original definition on this thread, if you no longer stick by it, fair enough. that aint my fault tho
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
I'm with you on the second part of this, to some degree.
But a reasonably off Afro-Caribbean third-gen person using a racial slur against a Chinese immigrant is still worthy of the word, in my view.
Similar threads
