End of disussion.

  • Moss [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    1 year ago

    Also context for any shitlibs who are crying over this (not that it should matter) - that thread was showing how popular outright nazism and white supremacy are on Reddit. Literally whiteys calling for concentration camps.

      • CyborgMarx [any, any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        54
        ·
        1 year ago

        Bro white people aren’t real, stop getting offended on behalf of an identity only sociopaths and losers identify with

        “every white person who isnt a comrade is my fucking enemy” comes off like “you’re a socialist, you’re one of the good ones”

        jesse-wtf

          • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            27
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’m disturbed that people here think an appropriate approach is to mirror such obviously unreal racist garbage instead of overcoming it

            What we’re trying to do – or at least should be trying to do – is to get people to think about why “cracker” lacks the invective of the n-word, and how racism runs much deeper than merely an insult based on skin color. But as you describe, we’re just mirroring racist insults, trying to offend people with them, then saying “how can you possibly be offended by this.”

            We’ll talk all day about how you can’t make a book or movie with subtext because no one will get it, then we’ll do this convoluted stuff instead of just explaining our views on how racism works.

          • CyborgMarx [any, any]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            27
            ·
            1 year ago

            but that doesn’t stop racists pretending they are and that didn’t stop many thousands of people being murdered over that unreal garbage.

            Ok and they also pretend capitalism is the best system in the world and murder millions every year over that unreal garbage, and they do the same over their bullshit conceptions of gender, religion, and nationhood, what’s your point?

            I’m disturbed that people here think an appropriate approach is to mirror such obviously unreal racist garbage instead of overcoming it

            Except nobody “mirrored” anything, because to successfully mirror something it would need to possess an equivalence of intent, scale, power, and social reach, if Othello whose post you have an issue with was actually going to mirror something, they’d first need to flip their intent in that post and instead of decrying those Nazis, they’d need to agree with them but stipulate that black people need to put whites in camps first simply for being “white”, and that’s just the first step, then they’d need to ally themself with an international network of black supremacists who are backed by powerful state actors and media platforms and who are comfortable putting white refugees in camps or drowning them in the ocean, THEN it would be “mirrored”

            instead of overcoming it…it doesn’t matter that we don’t identify with these terms, because society pushes them on us

            Except it does actually matter, because people are fighting on the basis of those questions every day, and you don’t overcome it by essentializing whiteness or labeling it an unbridgeable obstacle we can never change, because hey the racists imposed it, so what choice do we have but to identify with that imposition

              • CyborgMarx [any, any]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                22
                ·
                1 year ago

                Those top two, and sometimes even the third, aren’t things people choose to identify with, and in the case of trans people and immigrants, self-identity is often ignored.

                Ok, and I’m saying whiteness IS something you can choose to self-identify with because unlike many minority groups, “white” people do have the social capacity and ability to affect change in that arena

                Also you’re conflating light-skinnedness with whiteness again, people can’t help light-skinnedness, but they can help identifying their light skinnedness with an over arching political and social ideology like whiteness, and there’s only one way to do that, which is what op in that thread was decrying, so your previous examples don’t apply

                A person denying a job based on stereotypes of their race is racism. They don’t need intent, scale nor reach for that. Racism is still divisive garbage that fucks up social movements no matter if it’s instutionalized or not.

                Ok, but that’s not happening to “white people”, you know why? Because if the “person denying a job based on “light skin” stereotypes” is discovered, they’re the ones who are gonna get fucked, as they should. Because you actually do need intent, scale and reach to enforce prejudice, otherwise society and most importantly the state is gonna push your shit in

                But people who identify with whiteness don’t suffer from that dynamic, instead they prevent others from enjoying that protection, which is why it’s inappropriate to talk about “mirrors” or equivalences of any sort when it comes to this topic and why you shouldn’t conflate skin color with the ideology itself

                Now, how are we meant to overcome those obstacles (even just within a local setting like a socialist org) with people like Othello embracing it?

                Except they weren’t embracing it, they were literally decrying it, because they recognized that people who identify with whiteness don’t have their best interest at heart, the worst you could call that post was cynical or doomer, but not racist

                As far as I’m concerned, their redacted reply made it clear that they think continuing dividing the movement on whiteness is justified because of historical racial injustices in US socialist orgs.

                Ok and you’re dividing the movement because you want to preserve some kind of organic conception of whiteness, tied to people’s phenotypical traits, devoid of its historical and social role in human affairs? Because otherwise we’ll start being racist to light-skinned people? We don’t live in a world of simply light skin supremacy, we live in a world of white supremacy and to combat it we have to deconstruct whiteness and the ideologies and assumptions that underlay it, and yeah average people who ignorantly identify with it are going to get pissed off, but that shouldn’t prevent critique or making fun of people who turn it into their central personality trait

              • CyborgMarx [any, any]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                17
                ·
                1 year ago

                No, I suspect the concept will never be abolished socially until the capitalism that sustains it and simultaneously uses it as a functional tool is destroyed or negated, but as the contradictions of capitalism develop further in conjunction with climate change, so does whiteness as a concept; maybe it expands, maybe it contracts, maybe gen alpha resurrects the Young Patriots Organization and bisects whiteness and transforms it into some pseudo-radical identity, who knows, of course I highly doubt that will never happen, because at the end of the day whiteness has no content beyond exclusionary hatred

                But what will definitely happen is whiteness will change over time along with the contradictions of capitalism, and as that happens the artificiality of it becomes more apparent, and as materialists it’s always a sound strategy to point out the artificial, to de-essentialize racial rhetoric and stress when something is not set in nature, despite ideological claims to the contrary

                And I take your point about being “ideologically advanced” well, but ironically my usual approach is simple and fully in line with American socio-economic history; desegregation, but instead of arising out of segments of the black community like in the past and mediated reluctantly by a hostile state, it’s an “internal position” advanced by white radicals as a social movement, hardly an ideologically advanced position

                Of course, don’t ask me the likelihood of something like that happening, because I can get real doomer about the United States

      • nohaybanda [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        45
        ·
        1 year ago

        Feel free to argue it’s counterproductive (lol this is the dunk tank) but calling crackers white devils continues to not be racism

          • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            49
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            race as a concept was invented by white people to describe people who are declared outside whiteness

            whiteness isn’t a race, it’s a morphing caste and who belongs to it can change. We’re in a moment where speaking Spanish or being a Muslim automatically excludes a person from full whiteness, regardless of their ancestry or other features. The simple notion of who is or isn’t white has white supremacy baked into the concept

              • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                35
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Yeah it is different in places outside Anglo countries, I’ve noticed that. Dominican people I’ve known will associate whiteness specifically with skin color, regardless of the person’s ancestry, language, etc.

                Places outside the USA haven’t had as strict of a racial divide and so yeah I can see how it would get muddled.

                You mentioned showing people pictures. There’s a test I do with Americans sometimes. I’ll show them a picture of Bashar al-Assad, who they probably don’t recognize. I’ll ask what he is, and they’ll always say he’s a white guy. I tell them he’s a Muslim and the president of Syria, then they instantly change their answer.

                • temptest [any]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Places outside the USA haven’t had as strict of a racial divide and so yeah I can see how it would get muddled.

                  Yes, although it’s also all these secondary things, I’m guessing there was an implication in your comment that speaking Spanish was a sign someone had Central or South American heritage/etc. and was therefore non-white, whereas in other countries the main people speaking Spanish and Portuguese were from Europe so that isn’t a signal in the culture.

                  You mentioned Dominican people, and I think this generalizes to many other countries with European colonialism history without much diverse post-WW European immigration (contrast: USA, Australia) and they retained a strict racial divide as a result. An interesting counter-case is a memetic documentary clip filmed during an uprising in Tanganyika (basically now Tanzania) where the filmmakers are dragged out of their car and approaching a wall to be shot, when a soldier sees their passports and says “these aren’t whites, they’re Italians”. My (naïve!) guess is that their understanding of white stems from their British and Belgian oppression, and possibly even shaped by around a hundred thousand Tanganyikans fighting for the Allied forces in WWII.

                  Bashar al-Assad is an excellent test, because most people in the West envision Middle Eastern people as inherently having darker skin, certainly not light skin and blue eyes which are primary traits racist whites boast about. There’s a strong dissonance there, the same kind that makes dumbass neo-nazis start obsessing about poorly guessing who is Jewish or not. The point being, people assume they can tell, and often get it wrong, as you’ve shown.

                  • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    With Dominicans (and a lot of Latin America) my guess has always been that lighter skin signalled more recent colonizer ancestry, so it became a signal of wealth to have lighter skin regardless of one’s actual heritage, class, or anything.

                    That’s a really interesting clip and I’m really interested in watching the rest of the documentary, also I should read up on Tanzania in general. Thanks for sharing it.

            • temptest [any]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              But why is structural power or hegemony considered a prerequisite? Racism exists and has dangerous power regardless of structural factors like legality, see mass shootings. It doesn’t need to be institutionalized or dominant to be relevant and dangerous, that just makes it more dangerous.

              Just to be clear, I’m of course not trying to equivocate. White supremacy is hegemonic within ‘the West’, but that hegemony doesn’t prevent other racial supremacy movements from local dominance, or even from members performing lone-wolf racially-targeted shootings as an extreme example.

        • Damn straight. I don’t know why anyone is seriously engaging with this asshole. It’s not acceptable to invalidate your feelings and talk down to you because you were somehow uncivil or because of the abstract concept of racial abolition. If you’d talked about hating cis people who weren’t comrades and someone came in here talking about how you’re wrong because socialists aim to abolish gender roles and then started quoting Feinberg at you when you refused to engage, absolutely nobody would take that shit seriously and would rightfully tell them to fuck off. I understand race abolition and gender abolition are not 100% analogous in every way, but they sure are in the ways that count here. I’m sorry you’ve been deal with this shit.