“Institutional power allows those in the institution to oppress and control others. In the United States, she cited the institutions of education and government.”
According to this very limited definition of “power”, most individuals (regardless of race) can’t be considered racist. I have no power to oppress anybody. Nobody I know has any power to oppress anybody else either. So, I would think, according to this definition, most people aren’t racist. Glad I can cross that off my “To Do” list: Eliminating racism… No if someone could only redefine “pollution” so that wouldn’t be a problem anymore either…
how many murders does it take to call something genocide? I didnt realise there was a minimum number.
i dont pretend to know all the legal details about whats going on but to me all the who-owns-the-land legal information is irrelevant and bringing it up seems to me like you are trying to justify the actions of the racists with it.
i can see why you might feel that it is cheapening the word by using it on an (in your opinion) unworthy event, but i dont really think it matters what name you give it. Murder is still murder and i dont think the problem should be what you call it. For example calling genocide mass murder (or vice-versa) doesnt detract from the horror we all feel when we read about it in the paper or see it on the news.
It seems to me you are suggesting that what is happening in Zimbabwe deserves less sympathy than Rwanda, as if 1 murder is not just as horrific as 3 or 4. do u only give out your ‘strong terms’ for a certain number or deaths? If so are you not cheapening the events that do not have the correct death toll?
No. The point that Collounsbury was making (which can be disputed, as Gaspode has done), is that if genocide is defined as the attempt to destroy an entire people, the situation in Zimbabwe does not qualify. Is the situation shot through with racism? Yes. However, the violence and the calls for violence are not aimed at every white banker, computer programmer, bureaucrat, schoolteacher, hobo, and barfly and their wives and children. The violence is being aimed at a specific group of people who hold property that others want. Those white farmers who decided to chuck it in and leave have generally (outside a couple of incidents) been allowed to leave without being ambushed and murdered.
For the actions in Zimbabwe to be genocide (the killing of an entire people), every white person in the country should be a target. The demonization of whites that Mugabe has begun to invoke in his desperate bid to maintain power may lead to genocide, but the current situation does not support the use of that word (in the sense that I defined it above).
Further, I have seen no evidence that Col supports the actions that are going on. His original post was to add context for European and American readers who have seen only the headlines that show blacks attacking whites in the most simplistic terms.
One may, as Gaspode has done, challenge Col’s presentation or conclusions. It does not carry forward the discussion to misstate what Col has actually said.
And I believe that I can make a yet stronger case that given genocide is in common usage an event which aims at the extermination of a people and as Tom has noted current events (not Mugabe’s rhetoric) do not support such a claim. Thus I regard the usage as unnecessarily hyperbolic and distortive. This is not Rwanda, it could get to that point it is true, but given that the body of opinion seems to run against Mugabe and anti-white racism I again reiterate I consider you usage distortive and unnecessary.
Taking things out of context, IMO, and I contend that the facts on the ground do not support the definition.
I shall leave aside the legality argument, my point I think being adequately made
However in re Rhodes and his men:
To my understanding, post facto. That renders the position yet more probmlematic from an excesively theoretical POV. But this is neither here nor there since it was not my point to start with.
And here
Let me state clearly, I HAVE NOT NOR EVER HAVE I EVER JUSTIFIED MURDER. I frankly do not believe that if you reread my comments that they can fairly be read as legitimizing murder.
You have badly misread me for I have not in any way to my reading done so.
I did provide a context for what was going on so that the uninformed reader would have a better framework for understanding. As killing in cold blood versus killing in passion is understood differently, although both are wrong and must be punished, so is this situation analagous to an extent.
I was actually thinking in this case of legally disposessing the owners, above all those who directly, as opposed to indirectly, benefitted from the land siezures. Stolen goods, preventing profit from being realized from the same. I thought the context was clear that I was thinking of regular, just court procedures. (See the entire paragraph including follow up commentary on why this unlikely including the lack of good legal fora) However, my note was intended to acknowledge that although such actions, regular legal actions, may be fully justifiable in law, many observers not following the detials would react much in the same way as they are legitimately reacting to Mugabe. Of course part of the problem is that Mugabe’s cynical exploitation has poisened the weel, so to speak.
So, if you can step back, you will see your argument is largely against I position I have never taken.
I see the distortion arising in two places
One, you more or less clearly give the implication that such attitudes are rampant and widely supported in Zim, whereas an objective reading of the situation supports a contrary conclusion. Given few folks are likely to have a clue about this, I found this distortive to the point of being reprehensible.
Two, I actually don’t see much connexion between the vengeance line and this woman. I rather see race as actually being somewhat secondary here. That’s my subjective reading.
I reject your reading. Your appeals to emotion in re the usage of genocide strike me as unsupportable and I don’t see placing Mugabe’s cynical exploitation of the subject, blowing hot and cold (sometimes giving the firebrand speeches you cited, othertimes speaking of cooperation) all in the desperate search to stay in power, and my I believe factually correct emphasis on minority position of the supporters, let alone perps of murder as minimising.
Rather, I am giving MUCH needed context, whereas otherwise readers would have come away with the false impression that Zim is presently full of blood thirsty Africans looking to string up whites.
My reading of the paragraph still leaves me with the implication that such views are the views of the majority.
No I don’t think so. Jews had a deep seated place in his eschatology, I don’t think there is a substitute. However this argument is sterile.
Firstly, one can not always capture the full fabric of an experience in one brief post intended largley to give a context to your decontextualized and I think exagerated use of the word genocide.
Secondly, I believe that we can accept generalizations in the interest of brevity, where the generalization appears or can be defended as being largely true. I certainly try to avoid excessive generalization, however your standard is too restrictive by far.
That is your opinion and you have your right to it. That does not justify stating that I introduced distortions to the debate.
I would further argue that considering that the action of removing abused and unwanted children from their parents in this country has been labelled ‘genocide’ by an ex-high court judge in charge of a Commision of Inquiry your statement that “genocide is in common usage an event which aims at the extermination of a people” is utter BS. Compare “The…. finding is that the policies of removing Aboriginal children to assimilate them into the broader Australian society constituted “genocide” under the United Nations Genocide Convention because they were designed to destroy Aboriginal “cultural units”.” It would appear that in common and UN-legal usage destruction of cultural units, in this case landholding ‘Caucasians’, constitutes genocide.
See above
Possibly so, yet it was a point you made that needed rebuttal.
What exactly has been your point then if not to justify or mitigate the murders which I originally spoke of. I’m confused, as apparently is Rogue. I accept that it wasn’t your intent now, but you’ve made a very bad job of making clear what your intent was/is. What relevance to a definition of racism has any history to the crimes that were and are being committed if not to justify those crimes?
How can this have any other meaning: “At the same time dispossession without compensation will be … in fact … reversing the same.” This is a simple, straightforward and elegant argument for mitigation. What other reading could there be here.
And the argument ‘crime of passion’ is an attempt at justification and mitigation, so you have been arguing justification and/or mitigation all along. Otherwise this past history has no bearing on whether the action being carried out right now in Zimbabwe are racist or genocidal.
[/quote]
I was actually thinking in this case of legally disposessing the owners, above all those who directly, as opposed to indirectly, benefitted from the land siezures. Stolen goods, preventing profit from being realized from the same. I thought the context was clear that I was thinking of regular, just court procedures. (See the entire paragraph including follow up commentary on why this unlikely including the lack of good legal fora) However, my note was intended to acknowledge that although such actions, regular legal actions, may be fully justifiable in law, many observers not following the detials would react much in the same way as they are legitimately reacting to Mugabe. Of course part of the problem is that Mugabe’s cynical exploitation has poisened the weel, so to speak.
[/quote]
The problem is that you used this argument when quite clearly intending to demonstrate distortions on my part. Compare “However, with all due respect for my comrade Gaspode, he has inadvertently introduced some distortions here. I hope I can give a context….” How the hell does any of your above quote go towards giving context to or even demonstrating distortions. If all you have said is true my point still stands: “* The black government of Mugabe is encouraging and supporting the violent and horrific murder and dispossesion of people because they are white. ? If the “whites-have-all-the-power-at-some-level-and-therefore-blacks-cannot-be-racists-no-matter-what-they-do-to-whites” attitude held by this ‘lady’ is typical of Zimbabweans then it explains how these racist lunatics find it so easy to justify their genocidal works and gain supporters.*” The only way I can see the relevance of your historical and quasi-legal argument to providing context here is if you wish to argue mitigation or justification.
I quite clearly did no such thing. I will repeat: If you read what I posted again you will see that I actually said “If the “whites-have-all-the-power-at-some-level-and-therefore-blacks-cannot-be-racists-no-matter-what-they-do-to-whites” attitude held by this ‘lady’ is typical of Zimbabweans then it explains how these racist lunatics find it so easy to justify their genocidal works and gain supporters.”
How you can take this to be imputing racist beliefs on all Zimbabweans is beyond me. It quite clearly states that if the hypothesis were to be true then it would explain the ease with which Mugabe is carrying out his criminal acts. Had I said that I had met one illiterate Zimbabwean and hypothesised “If all Zimbabweans were illiterate it would explain their low performance on IQ tests” would you assume this even vaguely suggests such illiteracy is and low IQ is rampant and widely supported in Zimbabwe. You appear much to sensitive on this issue.
How does this invalidate my conclusion that if all Zimbabweans thought like her then Mugabe would find it easier to obtain followers? Or make it a distortion?
Then that is your personal opinion, and while I support your right to it, it adds little to informed debate when you use such opinion as the basis of blanket assertions such as “he has inadvertently introduced some distortions here”. I’ve made no appals to emotion. My definitions are supportable logically. If you wish to argue logically against it fine. If you wish to argue semantics I’ll probably get bored. If you wish to argue from philosophical belief please make it clear you are doing so, so I don’t waste time arguing against it using facts.
Yet it is either an attempt to minimise, mitigate or justify the crimes being committed in a racist manner, or totally irrelevant to the argument. What relevance does it have if you’re not disputing the facts presented? You could just as easily discuss the permian fauna of Zimbabwe and it still wouldn’t change the facts I have presented.
I find that hard to believe given the readership of this board.
However this does finally give a reason as to why you are posting this extraneous material.
You are attempting to ensure that people recognise that not all blacks are involved. I find this objectionable. It has nothing to do with the OP whatsoever and has resulted in a complete hijack of the thread. Couldn’t you have posted this in MPSIMS or started another GD thread? You didn’t just state that that was what you wanted to get across. You’ve stated that case elegantly in one sentence above. You could have done this in the first place, perhaps with a couple of cites for the interested and let it go if you felt so strongly that people would get the wrong impression. My linked site incidentally has numerous other links including a timeline of Rhodesian history.
I applaud your attempts to ensure the poor black Zimbabweans are not misrepresented, but no-one in this thread ever even implied anything even remotely like what you have suggested above. The idea that it is ‘much needed’ is solely yours and is about as meaningful as saying that a debate on evolution is much in need of a detailed discussion of ‘Genesis’ in the original Hebrew script. This is poor netiquette Col. I’m disappointed
Then we have a problem, because a reading of it in English makes it quite clear it says no such thing. That if is highly significant. Can you please answer me this: Had I said that I had met one illiterate Zimbabwean and hypothesised “If all Zimbabweans were illiterate it would explain their low performance on IQ tests” would you assume this even vaguely suggests such illiteracy is and low IQ is the case for the mjority of Zimbabweans? Simple question!
I’m a little confused or ill informed here. I thought eschatology was confined to ones believes about the apocalypse. I wasn’t aware Hitler had ever expressed any such views. However if you’re using another definition fine. Given that Mugabe has stated “The white man is not indigenous to Africa. Africa is for Africans. Zimbabwe is for Zimbabweans” I don’t think his stated views on whites is greatly different to Hitler’s stated views on Jews. The argument is not sterile since you seem to trying to make a case that if theft from the victims is involved then racialised murder cannot be called a racist act. That to my way of thinking is ludicrous.
But the debate is about racism, not genocide. My post contained only facts. Your objection seems hinged entirely on belief. I have great respect for your debating skills and your knowledge of African cultures Col, but please don’t perpetrate a hijack because you believe someone may think something. I politely ask you to stick with the facts and argument as posted and ask for clarification of my opinion if you must.
Secondly you never even made any attempt to capture even a fraction of the experience. You made a sweeping generalisation that demanded challenging if the actions of these murderers was not to be minimised. If I accepted your comment about all white farmers failing to acknowledge their past then only the guilty are being killed (even if the death penalty is a little harsh for the ‘crime’). If we acknowldge that the truth is ‘most’ or ‘many’, then the innocent are being killed and the morality argument, which you introduced, becomes clearer.
Not at all.
Saying that all white farmers fail to accept their past is as offensive, silly and counter productive as if I had actually said all black Zimbabweans hold racist views and support Mugabe. You don’t find my concept of generalisation to restrictive in the latter case and it shouldn’t be too restrictive in the former. What’s good for the Gaspode….
original question
Do you have to be white to be racist?
my answer
no.
reasoning, thus
do you have to be protestant to be sectarian in northern ireland?
if racism is making prejudiced, bigoted ASSUMPTIONS about a person based on a facet of their appearance (skin colour) then it is perfectly possible for ANYONE to be racist.
making prejudiced, bigoted assumptions about a person based on another facet of their appearance (clothing) is, however called FASHION.
such is life.
hijack
zimbabwe/racism/mugabe/genocide/various
my mother was born in zim (Rhodesia as was)of a jewish refugee father and a third generation irish/german/portugese mother.
neither she, nor her siblings have ever looked “white”. i’m talking dark skin, kinky hair, non-white features here.
her experience was of growing up being accepted by whites and blacks who knew her. and being utterly rejected by the mixed race or “coloured” community who thought she was mixed race and acting uppity by hanging out with the white kids.
she also remembers being refused entry to white only bars based on her appearance.
so there you go. bigoted assumptions based on appearance across the board.
as to mugabe, genocide etc.
the man is mad. stark staring bonkers. racist, sexist, homophobic, you name it.
let’s not forget that the colonial creation of rhodesia cut through tribal boundaries. mugabe and his cronies, if they are guilty of genocide it would be of fellow black zimbabweans WHO HAPPENED TO BELONG TO A DIFFERENT TRIBE during the chimurenga war. i mean open graves, villages slaughtered, that sort of thing.
you need to do more research on the country and to investigate the ancient mashona/matabele enmity before you can really comment on the current political situation.
mugabe and his supporters belong to one tribe, the MDC and it’s supporters mainly belong to another.
itnot about money and political power, not land or even race in the end.
the truth is that you cannot strip a man’s land from him because you disapprove of how his grandfather obtained it without ensuring him a decent living.
you cannot break a large farming estate (with many hundreds of employees) into tiny subsistence farms and expect the economy to survive.
and you cannot own most of the land in the country, have millions in a swiss bank account when your fellow countrymen starve and expect to survive in the political arena without pulling some serious shit.
which is what mugabe is doing.
as it stands there is a fuel shortage, the crops will fail and drought is forcast. anyone who can leave the country is doing so before it descends into famine and civil war.
feel free to flame me now.
This thread becomes less and less edifying as it progresses. I see little use in a pissing match which in the end is unresolvable. I will note then only the following. I do not believe a fair reading of my comments can reasonably be read as “justifying,” in any ordinary sense of the word, murder. My intention was to give a context for what I believe to be an inaccurate use of the word genocide, in large part by ignoring the full context of the events. The fact yourself and whatsihisface misread my comments whereas Tomndeb did not is regrettable but there it is.
I will note that you have a point in regards to generalization, however I further note there is a substantial difference. I believe that based on the facts as I know them that my generalization in fact accurately describes a majority of the group concerned. It would have been better had I added a qualifier and for that I will add me mea culpa. At the same time, I believe your initial comments inaccurately left the impression that the woman’s comments and Mugabe’s actions characterize the population of Zim when I believe the evidence suggests the contrary. As such I continue to view your characterization as having been seriously distortive for the reader who might not know the full context.
Perhaps it is best said that more careful characterizations are generally needed.
In any case, I think my position and analysis stands on its own and I shall refrain from further interventions.
But in re irishgirl
Mad? Rubbish. Amoral, cynical and manipulative and utterly devoid of care about national welfare, yes. Racist, maybe.
Hardly ancient, ndebele and mashona speaking groups only come into contact, according to historical estimates in the 19th century as ndebele groups move north under pressure from what’s going on further south.
You might want to depend in the future on good academic research.
Tribal analysis, besides being inaccurate, is a vast oversimplification rather along the lines of the above characterization.
Zim is not going to descend into apocalypse. At the very least Qadafi is providing emergency fuel at favorable rates, the civil opposition is far broader than you analysis would suggest and there is every sign the army is divided. Civil war, perhaps but coup d’etat is more likely.
I agree Col. Given that you have hijacked this thread and refuse to answer any questions concerning your logic or motivation this is pointless.
Aboriginals are hopeless lifelong welfare recipients. I believe that based on the facts as I know them that my generalization in fact accurately describes a majority of the group concerned.
Negro youth are criminals. I believe that based on the facts as I know them that my generalization in fact accurately describes a majority of the group concerned.
Negroes have an inherent advantage in sports.I believe that based on the facts as I know them that my generalization in fact accurately describes a majority of the group concerned.
Yeah sure you justify this type of racist generalisation when the group being referred to isn’t white :rolleyes: Col this is becoming less convincing by the minute to those of us who know you.
And so you reapeat the same assertion. And so I will repeat for the third and final time my question. Had I said that I had met one illiterate Zimbabwean and hypothesised “If all Zimbabweans were illiterate it would explain their low performance on IQ tests” would you assume this even vaguely leaves the impression such illiteracy and low IQ are characteristic of the population of Zimbabwe? Come on Col, it’s a simple question.
This is becoming like a discussion with peace or greinspace now. You keep repeating the same assertions over and over and refuse to adress the issue. I will repeat for the third and final time. The debate is about racism. My post contained only facts. Your objection seems hinged entirely on belief. How does historical background invalidate my conclusion that if all Zimbabweans thought like her then Mugabe would find it easier to obtain followers? Or make it a distortion?
The problem is that you intoduced historical justification when quite clearly intending to demonstrate distortions on my part. Compare “However, with all due respect for my comrade Gaspode, he has inadvertently introduced some distortions here. I hope I can give a context….” How the hell does any of the historical information provided so far go towards giving context to or even demonstrating distortions. If all you have said is true my point still stands: “ The black government of Mugabe is encouraging and supporting the violent and horrific murder and dispossesion of people because they are white. ? If the “whites-have-all-the-power-at-some-level-and-therefore-blacks-cannot-be-racists-no-matter-what-they-do-to-whites” attitude held by this ‘lady’ is typical of Zimbabweans then it explains how these racist lunatics find it so easy to justify their genocidal works and gain supporters.” The only way I can see the relevance of your historical and quasi-legal argument to providing context here is if you wish to argue mitigation or justification.
Translation. I have made my best attempt to justify the genocidal actions and racist beliefs of Mugabe and his followers by pleading ‘Crime of Passion’ and 'reversal of same. I have done my bit of witnessisng and hijacking and have no intention of answering such questions as " How the hell does any of the historical information provided so far go towards giving context to or even demonstrating distortions." Simply repeating ad nasusem that you view something as distortive peace style in no way goes towards demonstrating that it is distortive. It further does not add anything to our understanding of the acceptability or utility of the definition of racism given in the OP. Irrespective of how strongly you feel the poor blacks of the world are being misrepresented by a post dealing with one specific issue and linking to a comprehensive media site with a complete history of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, please do not perpetrate such hijcaks in future. Nothing you have presented so far has anything whatsoever to do with a definition of racism. It’s just fluff.
Now this comment of Col’s has got me seriously doubting his relative commitments to fighting ignorance and justifying the actions of economic minorities.
WTF? How the hell can the racist beliefs of a man who makes comments like “Our party must continue to strike fear in the heart of the white man, our real enemy. The white man is not indigenous to Africa. Africa is for Africans. Zimbabwe is for Zimbabweans” be in any doubt. How can there be any room for speculation concerning a man who supports the murder, robbery and torture of a specific racial group.?
Oh, oh, let me guess! He doesn’t really believe in this? He’s just doing it in a cynical attempt to hold onto power? Therefore he isn’t reeeaallly racist?
Yeah sure and Hitler wasn’t racist when he did and said the same things against the Jews. :rolleyes: Col, please explain.
Got anything to support this Col? His actions are those of madman. Could you please provide a cite for the psychiatric report you base this assertion on? Or are you simply presenting personal belief as fact? If the latter could you acknowledge this?
If I have to point out the irony here of you arguing above about the legitimacy of Rhodes’ 19th century land claim as some sort of mitigation under a ‘crime of passion’ defence’ then I suppose I should give up.
But presumably allowable should irishgirl believe that based on the facts as she knows them that her generalization in fact accurately describes a majority of the groups concerned. Maybe it would have been better if she had included a qualifier, but so long as she believes, without any justification, that your comments are distortive this technique is acceptable.
See how bloody silly this type of simplification makes any attempt at reasoned debate? We justify errors by subjective emotional judgements and the truth loses out.
Talk about distortive!
A) Irishgirl at no time suggested apocalypse. She said civil war which you yourself acknowledge is a likely outcome. You’re launching an attack at a strawman here.
B)I see nowhere in ** Irishgirl**‘s ‘analysis’ where she makes any suggestion of the relative scope of civil opposition. Would you care to point out where she did this so we can all see by what standard you are jusging ‘broader than suggetsed’? Or is this another strawman?
C)According to news reports I viewed only last night Zimbabwe is hovering on the brink of famine as we speak. Food production is at an all time low due in large part to the lack of production form the seized farms. According to this site, written by the former Cheif Economist for the Zimbabwe Government, a number of factors “suggest that the food shortage can easily become famine on a massive scale”. http://www.mdczimbabwe.com/archivemat/other/opinion/opinion.htm?nr010509xt.htm
How about this one: "The Daily Telegraph, 10 April 2001
ZIMBABWE may be forced to call for international help to avoid a famine
caused by President Mugabe’s seizure of white-owned farms, it emerged
yesterday. Zimbabwe once produced a surplus of maize, but a report by the Famine
Early Warning System Network forecast a 42 per cent fall in this year’s
crop and gave warning that stocks will run out by next January. " http://www.peacelink.it/anb-bia/week_2k1/010419d.htm
D)According to my Rhodesian freind virtually everyone who can is in fact leaving Zimbabwe before it descends into civil war and famine. Got anything to contradict this Col?
E)So Khaddfi is providing fuel. How does this in any way invalidate Irishgirl’s calim that ‘as it stands’ there is a fuel shortage’? Another strawman? Or does this have a point?
irishgirl I assure you Col will not flame anyone outside the Pit. He does have a fairly brusque and direct way of speaking, but it’s generally accepted it’s not meant to be offensive.
With the exception of your views on Mugabe’s mental health and the age of the Ndbele/Shona conflict, which I don’t know enough about to hold an opinion on, I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Please continue to contribute.
As I said, I see little to be gained in engaging in a pissing match and I refuse to engage in such presently. I do take exception to your characterization that I have somehow refused to explain my logic or analysis, a rather unprecedented and unfounded accusation. I already explained that your original statement read to me as a blanket indictement of Zim carrying the implicit characterization in “explains … find it so ** easy ** to justify their genocidal works and gain supporters” ; clearly you don’t see this. But I believe I said this already. Rather little I can do about this. As for your characterizations on generalization, I find your “examples” every bit as abusive, distortive and inaccurate as the rest of the intervention. I see little point in a merry go round over no substantive point at all.
You are free to come up with any sort of abusive or otherwise inaccurate « translations » you may desire of what I believe to be otherwise clear statements, I see no merit in responding .
However, in regards to my comments to Irishgirl, I do feel it necessary to add some explanations.
First in regards to my comment on fuel shortages and the in general the situation . I felt was apocalypse was implied in the original intervention by irishgirl, rereading suggests I may have read into this rather strongly, however I otherwise stand by the context. There is no question in my mind, just to be clear, that Mugabe has driven Zim to the edge and that he and his pack of jackals are responsible for the disastrous state of the economy and in fact the inability of the state to effectively respond to the climatic problems. At the same time I dislike the manner in which certain quarters disseminate “panic” based analysis, On the other hand of course it is clear that the situation in Zim is disastrous. I simply question the rhetoric coming from some sectors.
Fourth, in regards to Mugabe’s racism, given what I have read about him I simply have doubts as to his personal beliefs. I rather have the suspicion that the man is a cynical abuser of both power and rhetoric blatantly exploiting a situation. Perhaps it would be best if I explain that I regard this as rather worse, morally and effectively speaking, than if he were a in-his-heart racist. Clearly, Mugabe’s last decade and a half shall we say, marked by an absolute cynicism and unlimited thirst for power, has been the worst possible thing which could happen to Zim. I regret that a man who initially seemed capable and desirous, at least for a period of time, of pursing another path, through utter lust for power has brought his country to the brink. Again, in my mind, this cynical, selfish manipulation is worse than straight up prejudice. Similarly Qaddafi, in his recent visit to Zim ranted on about kicking the white man out of Africa. Do I take it from this that Qaddafi is racist in the proper sense of the word? No I do not. Like the big M, I see this as pure cynical manip, although in Qaddafi’s case one has to admit the man has had too many fruit loops. He might merit the adjective mad.
Further, in re your comment on the ndebele and connection with Rhodes, frankly you make little sense to me.
ANs isnce you obviously have no intention of answering any question or entering into a debate, preferring only to repeat the same rhetoric ad nasuseum I concur that this must be futile.
The situation in Zimbabwe only demonstrates that racism is essentially a group phenomenom. If you take a group’s land away by force, don’t be surprised if they try to take it back. But it’s shocking how dismissive people are of murder, rape, and robbery.
There have been several good responses here, especially by Folkie, but I wanted to add an additional refutation.
In the U.S., if you look at the real hard-core haters, the Aryan Nations and KKK types, you are confronting some of the most powerless people in America. Take a look at Rafe Ezekiel’s The Racist Mind for a number of examples. The average hate group member is dirt poor, has trouble holding a steady job, has few friends, and in many cases is hounded by the authorities. One would have to look hard to find a more marginalized, uninfluential group in American society. (Please don’t mistake the above statements of fact for sympathy. KKK members and Aryan Nations members deserve to be marginalized and powerless; God help us if they should ever obtain the power to put their wishes into effect).
Are we to conclude that these people, who live and breathe pure hatred against all who are browner than they are, are not racist merely because they lack power?
Many years ago, when I was taking Sociology 101 and was first introduced to this definition of racism, I asked my professor a similar question. I wanted to know if, since he was the individual who had all of the power in our classroom, he was the only person who could be considered a racist in that room.
The answer was, of course, no. What it eventually boiled down to, in that class at any rate, is that anyone who looks white and expresses racist sentiments is a racist, while anyone who looks otherwise and expresses racist sentiments is simply reacting in defense. So, by this logic, no one else in my family could ever be a racist, but I (by a twist of fate, not to mention DNA) could be one.
Considering that you can’t always tell what power a person has, or what human pedigree he has if we’re using that definition, just by listening to the hate filled words he might spout, it’s much, much simpler to consider a racist someone who holds the belief that a racial group is superior or inferior to others.
It’s good enough for the dictionary, so it’s good enough for me. The rest of that stuff? That’s oppression, plain and simple. Why muddle the language?
I’m from Zimbabwe too. But the difference is I see Racism as a scam. In short it is just a load of propaganda aimed at making whites (its only intended for whites) feel guilty up to their eyeballs and then stealing from them in the name of righting a supposed wrong. That’s the bottom line.
I have a chapter on racism in my soon-to-be-released book: Government by Deception. See my website: www.AfrianCrisis.org
Racism is just a load of propaganda - a game if you will, based on psychological warfare that’s all.
Hey look, it’s my months-old thread. I intend to re-read all the responses to see if yours fits with the discussion, janl.
Right off the bat, though, I can assure you that there are aspects of racism that fit absolutely nowhere into the “scam” idea. Take, for instance, my Little Sister being slapped and spit on at school and told she’s “just jealous that she isn’t white.” She’s 12. At what point does scam enter that scenario?
janl said: “But the difference is I see Racism as a scam. In short it is just a load of propaganda aimed at making whites (its only intended for whites) feel guilty up to their eyeballs and then stealing from them in the name of righting a supposed wrong. That’s the bottom line.”
Do tell? [celestina scratching her head] Um, would you care to tell me exactly how given the racist acts that have been recorded in the histories of several countries, racism is “propaganda?” Did historians just get together and decide that they were going to make all this slavery and oppression stuff up? How is it that so many folks all over the world of all different kinds of nationalities, skin colors, ethnicities, and religions can say that they’ve been discriminated against on the basis of race then? Are they all part of a worldwide conspiracy, and if so who doctored up this conspiracy/propaganda? As far as racism being “aimed at making whites (it’s only intended for whites) feel guilty . . . ,” that is a fascinating take on things. However, it leads me to wonder. If you feel guilty about X thing–in your case, racism–then I have to wonder why you feel guilty. Is it because you have engaged in acts that are considered to be racist, therefore making you a racist? Is it because you fear you are a racist, and aren’t really sure, but want to have your bases covered, and therefore feel guilty anyway? Is it because you don’t understand the world you live in right now because you have bought into the definitions and narrowed viewpoints that society has sanctioned, but you also have seen several persons, places, things, or actions that don’t quite fit into what society says is just and right? This last thing I call cognitive dissonance, and it is one of the most valuable things that a human can feel, for it can set that person down the path that may lead to enlightnment: critical thinking. Or is it something else? Hmmm.
The claim that the very idea of racism is a scam perpetrated on white people is completely inane, and seems to me to be a feeble attempt at defusing entirely justified accusations of racism on your own part.
No, really, some of my best friends are left-handed Albanian dentists.
(And this “scam” perpetrated by whom, precisely? The Illuminati? ZOG? The eeeevil liberal anti-white-male media? Hogan’s Heroes?)
Sigh. I hear complaints that education system in the US overemphasizes the accomplishments of minorities in an attempt to be too pc. I hear complaints that the education system is pushing a white agenda. So apparently, I’m pushing a white agenda by overemphasizing the accomplishments of minorities.
From my class discussion of the terms racism and descrimination. Racism, sexism, religious intolerance, etc. are attitudes or beliefs that assign percieved group characteristics (whether accurate or not) to an individual belonging, or percieved to belong to that group. Racial, sexual, age etc. discrimination is the application of that attitude in a situation in which one has power. Power, though, is relative. One has the power to harm just by expressing one’s views in just the right manner (cross burning comes to mind).
For example, I have noticed that, in general, Asian girls tend to perform significantly better in my classes than other groups. This is neither racism nor descrimination, it is merely an observation of general group performance. If I were to expect every Asian girl who happens to end up in my class to perform at a high level as a result of this knowledge, that would be racist, or if I were to ascribe high performance by an individual Asian girl to her ethnicity, that would be racist. If I were to treat her differently as a result of these expectations, that would be racial discrimination.
To sum up, race plus predjudice is racism. When you add power it is discrimination. But as I said before, everyone has some power at some time.
To read a more detailed version of janl’s take on the situation in Africa, you can visit this thread.
