Not to be a gatekeeper and all, but if you’re only a Nazi for the fashion, you’re a fake Nazi.
Agreed (edit)–except for your qualifier about “absent very clear, loud indications” etc. Even with those indications, White people still benefit from White privilege. It ain’t an opt-in system, and there’s no “please remove me from your mailing list” box to check.
Ah, okay. The stuff I’m talking about is more like the Nol Hoteps. We may be talking past each other in this regard.
And our hypothetical Jew is supposed to tell the difference, how, exactly? Fashion-Nazi’s heart may not be in it, but I’m sure his boots bruise up a face just the same.
Sure. But the ones who offset it would earn a reduction in negative reactions.
Possibly.
I don’t know any trans people who dislike cis people just because “they’re cis and that’s bad”. I know a couple who avoid most cis people, and only socialize in queer circles, because of a lifetime of cis hatred (and active violence). So when your OP spoke of trans bigotry I read it as that, not mindless hate. And that’s the kind of negative reaction I don’t think should be called bigotry.
Maybe the distinction seems important, but there are assuredly millions (and maybe billions) of people with legitimate reason to fear or be wary of men, white people, straight people, cis people, etc. That’s not bigotry.
And on the other hand, there are maybe thousands of fantasists (if that!) who preach that caucasian people were made by Satan. Maybe that’s bigotry, but there’s a better descriptor for it - irrelevant. Those people, and those attitudes, just don’t matter. It’s not winning over converts. It’s not resulting in, or reinforcing, mass oppression. It’s dumb and irrelevant.
Heres an article from David Pilgrim, Curator at the Jim Crow Museum at Central Michigan University. It’s a good thought provoking article. that might be appreciated here.
https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/question/2009/march.htm
Disagree that this is always jerky: Knowingly strengthening systemic oppression is jerkish, but part of why systemic oppression is so extensive is because it’s very easy to not even be aware of it. A teacher who chooses to use a test that they know is biased is a jerk. A teacher who doesn’t know that the test is biased, though, is merely ignorant, and might well correctly choose not to use the test once they learn about the bias.
And if, say, a gay person has been the victim of extensive abuse from straight people, they are completely justified in being biased against those specific straight people who abused them. They’re probably also justified in being biased against people who are members of groups that are wholly or in significant part defined by bias against gay people, though that justification might be overcome. But they are not justified in being biased against all straight people, because not all straight people abuse gay people. An abused gay person being biased against straight people is engaging in bigotry (albeit not as dangerous a form of bigotry as bigotry against gay people, because it lacks the reinforcement of systemic oppression).
If a Jew observes a person guarding a concentration camp and shooting those who attempt to escape, they are absolutely justified in bias against that person, and it would take truly extreme measures for that bias to be overcome, if it’s ever even possible. If a Jew learns that a person is a member of the Nazi party, then they’re justified in bias against that person, but should re-examine that bias if the Nazi in question happens to be Oskar Schindler. If a Jew learns that a person is ethnically German, and is biased against them on account of merely that, that’s personal bigotry, and is bad. It has reasons, and it’s understandable, but it’s still bad.
Although it might sting a little, I can’t fault a trans or queer person who gives me a wide berth in public. It’s a self-defense measure on their part. Maybe I won’t say or do anything, but maybe I’ll call them names and make their life unpleasant for a few minutes. Or maybe I’ll start bouncing their head off the nearest sidewalk, which, I’m sad to say, is a valid concern on their part. (Uh, not from me specifically. Just something some people legitimatly have to worry about in general.)
That some Jews who experienced the Holocaust might feel bias against Germans is the fault of the Nazis. Jews are human, and there are some traumas that can permanently affect how humans see the world and other people.
Correction! Ferris state university not CMU
Can Blacks be racist? Article by David Pilgrim Curator Jim Crow Museum at FSU.
Absolutely. That doesn’t make the bias a good thing; rather, it’s a result of trauma.
Occasionally posters here will make snide comments about how men are trash. Those are the sorts of comments that I’m talking about when I say
and am not talking about the bigoted comments that support systemic oppression.
As another example: years ago, when I was subbing, there was a Black kid I’d been getting along with pretty well. At lunch he told me a joke, the old saw about 3 people in an airplane going down. His punchline was something like, “And then the Black man said, ‘I’m doing this for my people!’ and kicked the White man out of the plane.”
Was this harmful? no. Did this make me cry? no. Did his joke support systemic oppression? no.
But I also wouldn’t want him telling a joke like this to his White classmates. Would you?
(FWIW, at the punchline I looked sad and said, “But I’m a White man. Does that mean I should be kicked out of an airplane?” and he scowled and said, “It’s not about you,” and that was the end of it.)
Please name a right diminished or denied to someone by Affirmative Action.
“No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” Not quite sure how best to phrase it; maybe something about a right to freedom from discrimination? Possibly with the quasi-obligatory right-wing bingo-card mention of being judged by the content of one’s character rather than the color of one’s skin? Then again, the Supreme Court might do it by way of citing equal-protection concerns; plenty of options, I guess.
TOWP may raise an important point: systemic oppression involves the entire system. Something like affirmative action, which advantages a group that historically has been oppressed, is not systemic oppression. Instead, when a group has been historically oppressed, opposition to means of rectifying this oppression is itself a contributor to systemic oppression. TOWP opposes affirmative action not out of bigotry or jerkiness; but that doesn’t stop his opposition from being harmful.
This definition is insufficient to distinguish between righteous diminishment of rights and unjust diminishment of rights. Please concede for the sake of argument that it is righteous to sentence serial killers to life imprisonment, and that the United States has strong historical and societal structures and norms that systematically deny or diminish the rights of serial killers. The absurd conclusion is that serial killers are systemically oppressed, and furthermore that diminishing the rights of serial killers is jerkish.
I anticipate a possible counterargument that no man who has been duly tried and convicted retains his normal rights to personal liberty, that serial killers are not oppressed on the basis of their status as serial killers or mental illness but on their criminal convictions, &etc. This is easily dispelled by applying the argument to Black Codes, which leads to the equally absurd conclusion that Jim Crow is not systemic oppression. It is your definition of systemic oppression which is lacking.
~Max
Innate characteristics are often relevant. The textbook example would be for a casting director to solicit actors of particular ethnicities rather than employ such devices as blackface or false accents. I’m sure you would not think poorly of a director who acts on such value judgements; but this contradicts the above quote.
~Max
So how would you propose it be worded?
Actually, on thinking about what you’re saying, the fix is trivial: " Systemic oppression involves historical, societal structures or norms that systematically and unjustly deny or diminish rights to a group of people."
Much better. I can’t think of a problem with that.
~Max
Did you just seriously compare having been born a member of a historically oppressed group to being a serial killer? That’s massively offensive.
Killing people is an action. Something an individual did, as an individual.
In no way did I belittle people of color, women, or any other group by pointing out that Left_Hand_of_Dorkness’s original definition of systemic oppression encompasses serial killers. I do not think serial killers are systemically oppressed and I think it is absurd to equate their “oppression” with bona fide racial, sexist, or class-based oppression.
The OP wrote “a group of people”, nothing about being born into the group. Poor people, for example, face systemic oppression whether they were born poor or not.
Do you think his definition of systemic oppression should be narrowed to groups of people where individuals were born into the group? To individuals who had no choice in their membership? I don’t think so. Such a narrow definition would exclude religious converts as well as the poor and drug-addled who were born in well-to-do middle class families.
~Max
I feel like you’re making a pedantic point about the definition that, okay, sure, could use a little more precision, but that also isn’t worth spending a lot of posts on. Precision added, done and dusted.