@Duchess64
You assume non whites would stick together.
Considering non whites kill each other every day and hate each other...
Your theory is BS.
I've been to inner cities.
Latinos hate blacks and vice versa.
Asians stick to their own.
Muslims hate everything and everyone.
Nice try Duchess.
@Cheesemaster
CERTAINLY not fun for racist assswipes like you but it turns out the rest of the world can get along just fine without the arrogance of whitey. I am ashamed we seem to be of the same white so-called race.
@Cheesemaster
Ah, so that excuses YOU to continue to believe Asians and Africans will ALWAYS be less intelligent than whitey.
You can rationalize it all you want but in the end you are still racist.
I have lived around the world, YEARS living and working up north in Thailand and I SAW the racism there, Thai's think Vietnamese are subhuman which is hyperbole but there is a slice of racism there, I saw up close.
There of COURSE is racism everywhere but that does not excuse YOU touting it as if a racist in Asia makes it ok for YOU to be racist.
It doesn't work that way. All it does is salve your mind that it is ok to be racist which it is NOT.
Funny, I noticed something. Asians have two arms just like us whites, they have two legs just like us whites, they have brains just as good or better than whites, Africans have a gift for athletics so where are all the white world champ boxers eh?
In another few hundred years all of that will go away because interbreeding will ensure there will BE no white only race.
Not only that, but a good number of people around the world have a couple of percent NEANDERTAL genes so you can thank them for your back slanting forehead.
I think Asians are smarter actually.
That doesn't bother me.
Who cares about blacks and boxing?
Ask a black about world championship swimmers and see what he says...
Nothing.
Ask him about chess...
Nothing.
Etc etc.
(UFC is dominated by whites and Spanish btw)
We all have abilities and disabilities.
That is what makes us unique.
@Cheesemaster
Tell that to Maurice Ashley
https://black-history.fandom.com/wiki/Black_Chess_Masters
The post that was quoted here has been removedThat comment takes an extremely narrow, if not also distorted, view of one's 'own interests'[...] People's own selfish interests are not necessarily static and fixed. Thinking people should reassess their own selfish interests as circumstances change.
I agree that that is the case, and I think that the examples you give (e.g., the man who opposes sexism out of affection for the female members of your family) are pertinent ones. However, the article you posted frames the issue fundamentally in terms of demanding that white people make personal sacrifices: they are expected to refuse higher salaries, to live in expensive neighbourhoods rather than affordable ones (but how can they manage to do the latter if they have done the former?), even to cut off close friends and relatives as a matter of political principle. Any of these actions would display a degree of high-minded altruism which is, to say the least, unusual.
Wealthy white capitalists have long been able to exploit working-class white people by giving them the sole consolation of telling them that they are better off than working-class non-white people.
A tactic the article ironically mirrors in its apparent assumption that richness and whiteness are practically synonymous.
There's no reason, apart from racism, that a working-class white person (struggling to get by) should believe that (supposed) billionaires like Donald Trump are closer than struggling working-class non-white people to one's own interests.
That is of course true, but the thrust of the article is fundamentally racialised. It pivots on the explicit notion that "White people need to begin giving up their privilege." Not rich people, but white people. One reason why a working-class white person might be led to believe that Donald Trump is closer to his own interests than struggling working-class non-white people is precisely the kind of rhetoric contained in articles like this.
In the USA, 'racial solidarity' (i.e. poor whites identifying more closely with rich whites than with poor non-whites) has long trumped class solidarity.
And articles like this one, whose terms of reference are exclusively to race rather than class, exemplify the situation. Note again how the article instructs white people ( rather than "rich people" ) to "give up their privilege" by participating in "anti-displacement efforts", i.e., by not moving to suburbs largely inhabited by black and Hispanic people ( rather than by "poor people" ). Would the person who criticised her affluent white colleagues for displacing black and Hispanic people from the east side of Austin have been comparably upset if they had moved to a neighbourhood primarily inhabited by poor white people, equally vulnerable to displacement? And if not, why not?
@cheesemaster saidStupid bloody generalization.
All races are racist.
What you should say is: all races produce racists.
But not everyone is a racist.
Some people like diversity. Some people don’t even think or care about the subject and just get on with their lives, no matter who’s standing or working beside them.
Personally, I couldn’t care less what colour, religion, gender someone is. As long as they’ve got a great sense of humor, they’re fine by me.
The post that was quoted here has been removed@duchess64 said
In classical music, some auditions are conducted behind a screen, so the selectors evaluate only the performance without knowing the gender or 'race' of the musician.
The general principle should be to reduce discrimination by gender or 'race' by withholding that information, if irrelevant, insofar as possible from the employer.
What strategies would you suggest to counter the more fundamental economic discrimination that ensures that affluent people (or more precisely, those with affluent parents) are far more likely to be able to afford the training and practice, the investment in time and money, that gets them to that audition in the first place?
I must confess that while I belong to at least two "privileged" categories (being white and male) and to one category that is sometimes subject to discrimination (being gay), I'm not convinced that any of these things have had half so significant an effect on my situation in life to date than has the fact that my parents are rich enough to have paid to send me to a private school, to have supplied me an allowance so that I didn't need to take paid work while at university, and to have given me the money for a deposit on a house. "Parental Housing Ladder Privilege", as it has been called, strikes me as the most fundamental form of privilege at least in British society.
I also wonder how the statistics would look if we factored in other forms of discrimination that aren't usually taken into account in sorting people into categories, e.g., physical attractiveness (people who conform to normative social assumptions of beauty seem to me very clearly privileged, but this isn't a form of privilege that gets discussed often).
The post that was quoted here has been removedInteresting... but another example of a fundamentally economic problem being inappropriately racialised. The herading, "It’s only working for the white kids", should read "It's only working for the rich kids". When I read the words, "Like many, he can’t ignore the fact that last year’s Women’s World Cup winners were almost all white, or that several of the non-white players on the US Copa America roster grew up overseas," but given the socio-economic data he supplies and the reasons for it, it seems clear that the fact that the players came from higher-income zip codes is the fundamental issue, and racial background is, in this specific case, incidental to that economic disparity.
While I'd accept that racial discrimination and economic disparity cannot by cleanly separated, I think the distinction is worth drawing, because the strategies needed to counter the one problem may be quite distinct from those required to counter the other.