Who are the Atomwaffen and what do they Represent?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

Catnip1024:

how are the people watching going to take them seriously when they assume they are just regular controversial pricks?

Because they hold regular controversial pricks in high regard in the first place (they think their edginess is a reflection of honesty).

undeadsuitor:

And for as passive and lazy as you've described them, they've still murdered multiple people

I mean, you can make fun of their mediocre camping skills all you want until they drag you out into the woods and kill you

Except they as a group haven't killed anyone as all the murders by their members have been domestic, individual incidents and they won't because it's a bunch of edgybois playing at being hardcore.

Your attempts to make them sound scary are about on par with tabloid journalism.

Moreover, I have to ask WHY you're trying to make them out to be so scary? Groups like them WANT you to be scared. That's basically the aim of terrorism. By trying to scaremonger you're doing their job for them.

Here Comes Tomorrow:

undeadsuitor:

And for as passive and lazy as you've described them, they've still murdered multiple people

I mean, you can make fun of their mediocre camping skills all you want until they drag you out into the woods and kill you

Except they as a group haven't killed anyone as all the murders by their members have been domestic, individual incidents and they won't because it's a bunch of edgybois playing at being hardcore.

"they haven't killed anyone, only members of them have killed people"

gee, whats it going to take? All of them holding knives Caesar style?

5 homicides all connected to one group. Regardless of the 'murder-type' (as if some murders are more acceptable) thats a group with 3 murderers in it.

Your attempts to make them sound scary are about on par with tabloid journalism.

Your attempts to undercut murder because the killers are conservative white men make you look like you agree with them

Moreover, I have to ask WHY you're trying to make them out to be so scary? Groups like them WANT you to be scared. That's basically the aim of terrorism. By trying to scaremonger you're doing their job for them.

I have to ask why you don't care about 5 people dead, when I've seen you be harder on liberal groups for less.

Here Comes Tomorrow:
Except they as a group haven't killed anyone as all the murders by their members have been domestic, individual incidents and they won't because it's a bunch of edgybois playing at being hardcore.

Your attempts to make them sound scary are about on par with tabloid journalism.

Moreover, I have to ask WHY you're trying to make them out to be so scary? Groups like them WANT you to be scared. That's basically the aim of terrorism. By trying to scaremonger you're doing their job for them.

First thing is first. Understanding someone's intentions is not the same as being scared as someone. Me trying to figure out why you're saying the things you're saying isn't tantamount to me believing you're Pennywise and you want to show me that everything floats down here.

Being unnerved, sure. Having precautions, fine. But that's the limit.

Secondly, that's a great defense I'll try when the Crips and the Bloods or Isis has a member who commits murder. "Hey, we don't know if they were under any orders to commit that murder, so really, it wasn't the group's fault. Even if said murder falls in line of the group's modus operandi."

ObsidianJones:

Here Comes Tomorrow:
Except they as a group haven't killed anyone as all the murders by their members have been domestic, individual incidents and they won't because it's a bunch of edgybois playing at being hardcore.

Your attempts to make them sound scary are about on par with tabloid journalism.

Moreover, I have to ask WHY you're trying to make them out to be so scary? Groups like them WANT you to be scared. That's basically the aim of terrorism. By trying to scaremonger you're doing their job for them.

First thing is first. Understanding someone's intentions is not the same as being scared as someone. Me trying to figure out why you're saying the things you're saying isn't tantamount to me believing you're Pennywise and you want to show me that everything floats down here.

Being unnerved, sure. Having precautions, fine. But that's the limit.

Secondly, that's a great defense I'll try when the Crips and the Bloods or Isis has a member who commits murder. "Hey, we don't know if they were under any orders to commit that murder, so really, it wasn't the group's fault. Even if said murder falls in line of the group's modus operandi."

You know there's a reason that whenever an act of seeminly large scale, random violence occurs ISIS are really quick to claim responsibility. It's because the group WANTS you to be scared of them and wants to make itself seems like more of a threat than it is. From what I've seen none of those murders have been done in the name of Atomwaffen nor has the group come forward to claim responsibility. Hell, the first guy could even be considered an anti-white supremacist vigilante considering his given motives. By you're own reasoning you're saying that a muslim who killed nazis for mocking his religion should still be considered a murder by a nazi. That makes zero sense. Unless you're saying muslims are nazis.

The funny thing about extremist groups, be they white, black or brown is that they tend to recruit people who don't fit into normal society. Certain people who don't fit into society also tend to be mentally ill. Mentally ill people can sometimes be violent. This isn't rocket science.

As I said earlier in the thread I don't really care about 5 dead people, it's a drop in the ocean. People get killed all the time. You can't ask me to care about every fucking single person that gets killed. Here's a fun game, check this site out:

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/last-72-hours

According to it, 11 people died due to gun violence in the US yesterday. Should I care about them? Or should I just care about the 3 cases you linked because they have different opinions to us? Also don't think I didn't notice you're saying 5 murders and not 3 murderers to try and make it seem like the link is more common than it is.

Lastly, gang violence is different from ideological violence which again, only one of the cases even comes close to.

Your attempts to undercut murder because the killers are conservative white men make you look like you agree with them

If my dogs hadn't finally settled down to sleep I'd be laughing fucking arse off right now. Sorry I don't find a bunch of weedy tryhards burning pamphlets and flags in the woods scary. I guess my years of living next to heroin dealers and chasing junkies away from my front door then moving to IRA country must have altered my perception of what I find threatning.

You're thinly veiled accusations that I'm some kind of nazi sympathiser because I'm not shrinking in fear from small group of scrawny trailer trash are hilarious. Maybe it's a cultural thing but I just genuinly don't see anything threatning about them. All the gay guys I was friends with back in Scotland could have kicked the shit out of any of the members of Atomwaffen I've seen as well. Despite what you're told by the left, not everyone who's a minority lives in a constant state of mortal fear that the nazis are going to come round their house and kick the door in. That seems to be an exclusivly American left perception.

As for being hard on left wing groups, I can't remember any specific instances but just because you're flying a banner of "progressiveness" doesn't make them immume to critisism. The right wing gets attacked all the time and adding my voice to the choir isn't going to really do anything but I have a lot of issues with liberal's...prioritisations I suppose, of the groups they supposedly fight for and their methods of doing so. But my personal politics aren't what's being discussed.

Anyway, feel free to continue trying to make me regress into a mewling baby because the big mean nazis are coming to get me.

altnameJag:
And how would we do that, exactly? What point in the "women and minorities have it worse" should we "stop spiraling". And why is this "our" responsibility in the first place? Why am I in charge of protecting other people's feelings? How much racial and sexual discrimination are we supposed to accept?

Well, I think dispensing with the "Dear White People, You Need To Be Abolished!" thing would be a fine starting place. How much racial and sexual discrimination is required for Special Justice anyway? All of it, just at "right targets"?

And it's the responsibility of anyone who wants the spiral to end. But maybe you prefer a Race War? I don't, so maybe it's time to cordon off the belligerents from those of us who would prefer to live in peace with each other.

Agema:

Well, depends what we mean by the original lash.

Good question. Maybe we need to mythologize about why the people who were the ancestors of "non-Africans" left the fertile plains of Africa tens of thousands of years ago. My "theory"? They were oppressed and excluded! It all stems from that Original Sin...

See how that works?

StatusNil:

altnameJag:
And how would we do that, exactly? What point in the "women and minorities have it worse" should we "stop spiraling". And why is this "our" responsibility in the first place? Why am I in charge of protecting other people's feelings? How much racial and sexual discrimination are we supposed to accept?

Well, I think dispensing with the "Dear White People, You Need To Be Abolished!" thing would be a fine starting place. How much racial and sexual discrimination is required for Special Justice anyway? All of it, just at "right targets"?

And it's the responsibility of anyone who wants the spiral to end. But maybe you prefer a Race War? I don't, so maybe it's time to cordon off the belligerents from those of us who would prefer to live in peace with each other.

So, you're fine with game developers cutting off their racist team members? 'Cause there's a lot of gamers right now throwing a shit fit about the Subnautica devs doing just that. Am I allowed to comment on that without it making me a belligerent? If I call those guys pricks, am I actually calling for a race war? How come you get to use all that delicious hyperbole, but "white people don't like spice" is bad, actually? I do like how your idea to "cordon off the belligerents" starts with the smaller party not perpetuating most of it. Then, after you aren't hearing from them anymore, there won't be any more com0laints about racism! Problem solved, you're a genius.

StatusNil:
Well, I think dispensing with the "Dear White People, You Need To Be Abolished!" thing would be a fine starting place.

You know, as a white person, let me give my white perspective on why this happens.

Statements like this are not directed at overt racists. Overt racists, of course, seek out statements like this and attempt to publicise them in order to discredit the idea that people of colour deserve equal treatment, but that is incidental.

These are not serious statements of intent, although I'd hesitate to call them jokes (they're not meant to be funny) which are, in particular, aimed at white allies. They are made specifically to weed out the people whose allyship is performative, that is to say based on self-interest and a desire to be respected or seen to be a good person.

See, much as the alt-right loves to decry any privileged person (white, straight, cisgender, whatever) who advocates for the rights of marginalized or discriminated people as "virtue signalling", the reality is that some people are genuine. Some people do want to help, and some people do genuinely share in the anger of the oppressed minorities they advocate for. The way you can spot these people is that they do not expect to be rewarded. They understand that anger is a normal response to oppression and that these kinds of statements and outbursts do not actually hurt them.

I mean, do you disagree? Do these statements hurt you? I mean, your children aren't literally being gunned down in the street like animals. You aren't confined to low income areas by racist housing practices which ensure poverty and social problems are reproduced intergenerationally within your community. You can get on a plane or a public transport without being taken off for a security check. I think white people are quite a long way away from the point at which a few jokes or mean words are going to actually hurt them. The abolition of white people, if it's a serious intent or program, doesn't seem to be going very well. Your idea that this will provoke some kind of race war is bizarre, because if this was enough to provoke a race war, what do you think shooting black kids for being in the wrong neighbourhood is going to do? What's the appropriate, non "spiralling" response to that? Does "living in peace with each other" mean tolerating that?

We can argue tactics. But it strikes me that the people who get hugely upset about these kinds of isolated, non-literal statements rather than at the actual reality of racism that exists out there in the world were ultimately just looking for an excuse to do nothing anyway, and I mean literally looking, as in searching on the internet and furiously trawling through right wing internet forums in desperate search of the proof for the hypothesis that everyone is equally victimized and therefore there's no need to do anything about it. That's in many ways the whole point, if this upsets you, if this gets in the way of your idea that we can all live in harmony if we just got rid of the few bad apples on both sides (because remember, every story has two sides!) then your "anti-racism" is worthless.

Because out here, in the real world, racism isn't just a few bad apples being mean to each other, it's a huge systemic problem which saturates every element of our society, which has hundreds of years of history and culture built up around it and will probably take hundreds of years to dismantle, if it ever is. It's an ideological and material problem with material implications (sometimes fatal implications) for the people it affects. If your definition of living in harmony means tolerating the material reality of racism and then censoring speech which reminds you that it exists, then you were never opposed to racism at all, you were only opposed to having to see it.

To some people, forcing you to acknowledge that is always going to be useful, because it reveals you for what you are and means they won't mistakenly rely on you to actually do anything.

evilthecat:
These are not serious statements of intent, although I'd hesitate to call them jokes (they're not meant to be funny) which are, in particular, aimed at white allies. They are made specifically to weed out the people whose allyship is performative, that is to say based on self-interest and a desire to be respected or seen to be a good person.

But why though? Who cares if their allyship is performative. I'd rather have a performative ally than an enemy, performative or otherwise. If the right reason to do this is to achieve cultural and political solutions to systemic problems then confusing your allies and people who are kind of lukewarm about you about maybe being in favour of some kind of ethnic cleansing to scare them off, seems counterproductive and itself done for the wrong reasons. You don't have to respect your performative allies but antagonising them seems pointless. The precise reasons people do something need not always be discussed and are best left to conversations between close friends.

I do agree that some rando making these statements (which I've encountered maybe once or twice outside of rightwing propagandist endlessly repeating them) is a complete irrelevance when compared to the problems of (for example) racist policing or hiring practices but I still wouldn't recommend making them, both because I don't agree with them at all and because I don't see the point in preemptively antagonising performative allies.

Pseudonym:

evilthecat:
These are not serious statements of intent, although I'd hesitate to call them jokes (they're not meant to be funny) which are, in particular, aimed at white allies. They are made specifically to weed out the people whose allyship is performative, that is to say based on self-interest and a desire to be respected or seen to be a good person.

But why though? Who cares if their allyship is performative. I'd rather have a performative ally than an enemy, performative or otherwise. If the right reason to do this is to achieve cultural and political solutions to systemic problems then confusing your allies and people who are kind of lukewarm about you about maybe being in favour of some kind of ethnic cleansing to scare them off, seems counterproductive and itself done for the wrong reasons. You don't have to respect your performative allies but antagonising them seems pointless. The precise reasons people do something need not always be discussed and are best left to conversations between close friends.

I do agree that some rando making these statements (which I've encountered maybe once or twice outside of rightwing propagandist endlessly repeating them) is a complete irrelevance when compared to the problems of (for example) racist policing or hiring practices but I still wouldn't recommend making them, both because I don't agree with them at all and because I don't see the point in preemptively antagonising performative allies.

Some people don't like the idea of being sold out further down the road by those who claim to care about their plight.

StatusNil:

Good question. Maybe we need to mythologize about why the people who were the ancestors of "non-Africans" left the fertile plains of Africa tens of thousands of years ago. My "theory"? They were oppressed and excluded! It all stems from that Original Sin...

See how that works?

Yes, I see how that works. I also think it can be done sensibly and reasonably... or as in your example, not.

The argument between left or right is generally a load of finger-pointing that the other side as unfair and unreasonable.

Consequently, the presentation of the right about identity politics is generally that the left is kicking up a fuss over nothing, because that's what makes them unreasonable and unfair. Implicitly, that the world was hunky-dory and everything was going smoothly until feminists, black activists, etc. started trying to "cheat". But in truth, the world really wasn't fine before identity politics, and we can't draw some magical line to suggest that a bunch of troublemakers just made objections out of nothing that there had to be a backlash to.

This is not necessarily a defence of identity politics per se; it's not "correct" or "best practice" just because it derived from genuine grievance. But on the other hand, trying to reject there was any grievance at all are nearly always lies, and lies that can effectively whitewash and apologise for genuinely unpleasant things about the old days. The danger being that a subsection truly don't believe there was anything wrong with the way things there were, and there needs to be some caution about advancing arguments that effectively flatter their outlook.

Pseudonym:
But why though? Who cares if their allyship is performative. I'd rather have a performative ally than an enemy, performative or otherwise.

Performative allies, aren't real allies, though, they are LARPing it and demanding to be taken seriously. They are, at best, utterly useless. More often they are at least a damned nuisance, and more likely a burden.

Now, I guess hypothetically you might meet someone that'll do something useful if you back them on the head and call them a good boy for saying racism is bad, but I can think of literally no examples at all of that happening in the real world. You are simply much better off without them.

evilthecat:

You know, as a white person, let me give my white perspective on why this happens.

Statements like this are not directed at overt racists. Overt racists, of course, seek out statements like this and attempt to publicise them in order to discredit the idea that people of colour deserve equal treatment, but that is incidental.

These are not serious statements of intent, although I'd hesitate to call them jokes (they're not meant to be funny) which are, in particular, aimed at white allies. They are made specifically to weed out the people whose allyship is performative, that is to say based on self-interest and a desire to be respected or seen to be a good person.

See, much as the alt-right loves to decry any privileged person (white, straight, cisgender, whatever) who advocates for the rights of marginalized or discriminated people as "virtue signalling", the reality is that some people are genuine. Some people do want to help, and some people do genuinely share in the anger of the oppressed minorities they advocate for. The way you can spot these people is that they do not expect to be rewarded. They understand that anger is a normal response to oppression and that these kinds of statements and outbursts do not actually hurt them.

I mean, do you disagree? Do these statements hurt you? I mean, your children aren't literally being gunned down in the street like animals. You aren't confined to low income areas by racist housing practices which ensure poverty and social problems are reproduced intergenerationally within your community. You can get on a plane or a public transport without being taken off for a security check. I think white people are quite a long way away from the point at which a few jokes or mean words are going to actually hurt them. The abolition of white people, if it's a serious intent or program, doesn't seem to be going very well. Your idea that this will provoke some kind of race war is bizarre, because if this was enough to provoke a race war, what do you think shooting black kids for being in the wrong neighbourhood is going to do? What's the appropriate, non "spiralling" response to that? Does "living in peace with each other" mean tolerating that?

We can argue tactics. But it strikes me that the people who get hugely upset about these kinds of isolated, non-literal statements rather than at the actual reality of racism that exists out there in the world were ultimately just looking for an excuse to do nothing anyway, and I mean literally looking, as in searching on the internet and furiously trawling through right wing internet forums in desperate search of the proof for the hypothesis that everyone is equally victimized and therefore there's no need to do anything about it. That's in many ways the whole point, if this upsets you, if this gets in the way of your idea that we can all live in harmony if we just got rid of the few bad apples on both sides (because remember, every story has two sides!) then your "anti-racism" is worthless.

Because out here, in the real world, racism isn't just a few bad apples being mean to each other, it's a huge systemic problem which saturates every element of our society, which has hundreds of years of history and culture built up around it and will probably take hundreds of years to dismantle, if it ever is. It's an ideological and material problem with material implications (sometimes fatal implications) for the people it affects. If your definition of living in harmony means tolerating the material reality of racism and then censoring speech which reminds you that it exists, then you were never opposed to racism at all, you were only opposed to having to see it.

To some people, forcing you to acknowledge that is always going to be useful, because it reveals you for what you are and means they won't mistakenly rely on you to actually do anything.

I'm having problems in figuring out how to structure a response, as there are so many unexamined assumptions here. But I'll give it the old college try.

You don't need to concern yourself with the failings of my "anti-racism", I'm not trying to do "anti-racist activism". That is, I'm not so concerned with some "bad apples" on any team that I'm going around torching orchards to eliminate the very possibility. As long as you have apples, you're going to get some bad ones. What I am concerned with is the very comprehensive project of establishing a total ideological hegemony based on identitarian zero-sum games by the institutions at the top of the cultural hierarchy, notably academia and the media. I believe the Germans have a word for it, "Gleichschaltung". Anyone unfamiliar with it should probably look it up.

I believe this racial mystique stuff is very much misguided and not likely to contribute to the improvement of lives, based as it is on an historical misconception of humanity as "separately created" in different areas because of superficial evolved differences, or some such notion. By now, we ought to know better. And while this doesn't invalidate legitimate concerns with the incommensurability of different cultural values that come into conflict with the increased mobility of populations, it means that there is no reason why people who are Shade 237 on the Color Chart should be posited in opposition to people who are Shade 089. And again, this is not to deny that it has happened, and continues to, quite possibly involving ourselves. The point here is to question the wisdom of deliberately continuing to perpetuate this tragic misconception in the name of specifically qualified "justice".

And yes, terrible things like kids getting gunned down do happen. But portraying them as a routine occurrence and as a collective action characteristic of [Group Z] against [Group Y] is inflammatory and dangerously irresponsible at best. This is what went wrong with the BLM movement. As we've seen, these incidents can all too easily happen outside of that particular racial configuration. Yet instead of presenting a unified population concerned with the issue of police use of force, it was aggressively contextualized within a framework that pitted people on opposite sides of a "racial" divide. (Incidentally, an alleged part of those Russian social media operations everyone is so worried about appears to have involved whipping up BLM rage. As stands to reason, if you think about it. It's just not woke to mention it, so the mainstream rarely does.)

Furthermore, the idea that people are willing to take on the rage of the bereaved just because they are so "genuine" strikes me as dangerously naive and lacking in insight into human motivations. But be that as it may, consider that the very distinction of justice is that it is carried out by those not directly involved, otherwise what we're talking about is vengeance. I'm reminded of something I read somewhere, about how the beginning of Western Civilization is marked in the Iliad by the rejection of the Furies who stand for vengeance implicit in the recognition of the human loss of the enemy. So I'm inclined to view the eagerness to get vicariously vindictive on behalf of the historical pain of generations past with some suspicion.

In the end, we also have to reckon with the question of "What works?", and "Towards which ends?" One would like to think that the end here is a cohesive society that affords opportunities for everyone, regardless of their pigmentation. So why on Earth would we deliberately undermine any possibility of such a society by systematically reintroducing racial discrimination ("only this time it goes the other way!") into its codes? Our institutions are teaching "People of Color" (a truly insidious term, suggesting an essential difference) to reject the sources of power that they ought to have equal access to ("decolonization of science!") as a vicious mental snare against their authentic existence, while broadcasting to "People of No Color" about their "obsolescence" as some kind of deserved penalty. It really shouldn't take a semi-edumacated bum like me to point out that that's exactly the kind of process you would employ to drive people into modes of quasi-social organization such as racial supremacy groups as a result of the loss of legitimacy of these institutions for them. And there I was thinking we were supposed to be against that.

I mean, I kinda am. Just not sure about you others. Maybe indulging in a heroic fantasy of "liberation" is just so much more compelling than boring old Liberalism. I get it, but I like to get my thrills in works of fiction. Less likely to end in bloodshed.

Pseudonym:
But why though? Who cares if their allyship is performative.

The people who rely on that allyship.

I mean, again, this isn't about manners and courtesy. People are being killed. People are being driven to suicide. People are being denied basic things which they need to live. These are part of the experience of marginal oppression, not just racism of course but all forms of marginal oppression. These are material realities, and if we as a society don't engage with these realities then nothing will ever get better.

I mean, if you want something concrete. There's a big problem with allies in activism, in that the voices and influence of allies tends to be massively amplified over those of the people who are actually affected, and if those voices are self interested, if those voices are performative, then they're drowning out the actual signal. Heck, let me give an example..

This was part of a poster campaign produced for Pride in London. It's a well meaning campaign and I know the people behind it had good intentions because I've met most of them, but do you see the problem? This is the end point of performative allyship in activism, it is the literal marketing of gay people, of women, of other marginalised groups not as human beings in their own right but as cosmopolitan accessories. It doesn't help anyone except straight allies, it doesn't affirm anyone except straight allies, it doesn't advocate for anyone except straight allies.

If someone is keeping you around because having a gay friend makes them feel more interesting, or because being vocal about civil rights makes them feel like they're special or more woke than other white people, then that is still homophobia, it's still racism, and when the time comes, when you need those people to lift you up, when you need them to support you they'll be gone. They'll be gone because it stopped being about them, it stopped being their fun crazy adventure into being the white saviour or the straight ally, and as far as they're concerned that was all it was ever about.

Sometimes, it's just better to get past that stage before you need those people, and before they take up space which could be better filled by someone else. If that's all it takes to turn them into overt racists, then they were always overt racists.

And yeah, sometimes people burn out and just don't know when to stop. I'm not saying every outburst is some kind of elite next level activist tactics. I'm saying that even if it is just burnout and anger, it comes from an understandable place.

StatusNil:
What I am concerned with is the very comprehensive project of establishing a total ideological hegemony based on identitarian zero-sum games by the institutions at the top of the cultural hierarchy, notably academia and the media. I believe the Germans have a word for it, "Gleichschaltung". Anyone unfamiliar with it should probably look it up.

Honey, please..

The point of an "ideological hegemony" is that it remains hidden beneath the facade of truth or normality, to the point of requiring ideological critique (you know, that thing we do in academia) to be visible.

How are you claiming or asserting an ideological hegemony? What practice of ideological critique reveals this hegemony? What material force reproduces and sustains it? Because right now it sounds like what you mean is that political positions which you like or feel to be true are subject to political critique in academia, and that makes you uncomfortable. All positions are subject to critique in academia, at the end of my PhD my thesis will be something I have to defend. The point is to have a thesis which can survive critique.

StatusNil:
I believe this racial mystique stuff is very much misguided and not likely to contribute to the improvement of lives, based as it is on an historical misconception of humanity as "separately created" in different areas because of superficial evolved differences, or some such notion.

What radical mystique? Also, who is talking about creation or genetics?

I mean, the ideological system of race which we use today is only a few centuries old. Ancient Greeks or Romans did not think of race the same way we do, they did not practice the same forms of racism that we do (I mean, they had their own systems of hierarchical oppression and their own taxonomic systems of classifying human beings according to personal quality, but it wasn't the same as our modern racism). Extending this back into the creation of human beings themselves is so obviously, obviously contradictory to my point that I struggle to see how you got there.

StatusNil:
And while this doesn't invalidate legitimate concerns with the incommensurability of different cultural values that come into conflict with the increased mobility of populations, it means that there is no reason why people who are Shade 237 on the Color Chart should be posited in opposition to people who are Shade 089.

No, there is no inherent reason why that would be the case.

However, it is the case. It has been the case for hundreds of years, and it has not been a secret.

It is not incidental or accidental that during the several hundred years of slavery in the US, the vast majority of slaves possessed a particular range of skin shades. You could argue that it was initially incidental, in that the slaves were purchased from West Africa as part of a preexisting slave trade, but even if that were the case it very quickly stopped being incidental. It became part of a general view of the world which we call "racism", which built on preexisting classical ideas about climatic determinism and Christian mythology, as well as a cultural interest or obsession with heredity in parts of Europe at the time to produce a general model of humanity as divided into distinct groups called races distinguished, in part, by the colour of their skin. This became the ideological justification for a hierarchical ordering of society along racial lines, and for explicit discrimination against races judged to be inferior.

See, one reason I roll my eyes when you tell me about ideological hegemony is that ideology, actual ideology, possesses material force, indeed the material force is how ideology reproduces itself. Ideology is not the fact that we politically disagree, it's the reasons why, it's the underlying view of how reality works, and that view can serve a prescriptive or self-fulfilling function while purporting to be merely descriptive. Race was never a real, inherent property of people, but belief in race created a society in which race was real, in which race determined where you could live, what you could do, who you could associate with. The realness of race, the material way in which whole societies have been ordered along racial lines, will not disappear because you close your eyes to it.

StatusNil:
Furthermore, the idea that people are willing to take on the rage of the bereaved just because they are so "genuine" strikes me as dangerously naive and lacking in insight into human motivations.

I think if we needed evidence that race was real, we need look so further than the fact you just effectively denied the possibility that a white person could be sincerely angry about the mistreatment of black people while also resisting the temptation to make that anger all about themselves.

I mean, that's a bit facetious. I get it. You find it confusing that anyone, regardless of racial background, would be angry about other people's kids being murdered because you think this indicates that they the magically can't distinguish between themselves and other people, that they've been brainwashed into some kind of evil groupthink identity by the cultural marxist cuckluminati rather than the far more obvious explanation that they see the connection between the ideological justification for the more routine, everyday forms of oppression and discrimination which they suffer and the ideological justification which results in kids being shot, because both ultimately stem from the perpetuation of that aforementioned ideology of race and its role as a method of social organisation.

StatusNil:
But be that as it may, consider that the very distinction of justice is that it is carried out by those not directly involved, otherwise what we're talking about is vengeance.

So, who, at this point, on this planet, is not "directly involved" either in the ideology of racism, or in its material consequences.

Because I'm not sitting and waiting for life to be discovered on Mars.

StatusNil:
I'm reminded of something I read somewhere, about how the beginning of Western Civilization is marked in the Iliad by the rejection of the Furies who stand for vengeance implicit in the recognition of the human loss of the enemy.

What is "Western Civilization" in this case?

StatusNil:
Our institutions are teaching "People of Color" (a truly insidious term, suggesting an essential difference) to reject the sources of power that they ought to have equal access to ("decolonization of science!") as a vicious mental snare against their authentic existence, while broadcasting to "People of No Color" about their "obsolescence" as some kind of deserved penalty.

Firstly, the term people of colour is used because it literally challenges the idea of an essential difference. All people have coloured skin, that is the point. However, certain forms of colouration have become ideologically marked through the practice of racism, they have come to mean something about the person who possesses that colouration. Again, an actual material arrangement of people was built on this system and still survives largely intact.

Secondly, if you genuinely believe that the knowledge economy is racially or politically neutral (or that it was before the scary ideological hegemony came along) then you have quite fundamentally missed something and/or have virtually no grasp of the most basic, undergraduate level history of ideology. And no, as someone whose institution has been pretty close to the forefront on this issue, academic decolonization is not about rejecting science as in a generalized rejection of useful knowledge, it's about rejecting the idea that science is politically neutral and that it's purely a weird coincidental accident that it's historically been the almost sole preserve of white men. It's about building a scientific curriculum which is sufficiently critical to account for the fact that emergence of modern science was accompanied by a massive intensification and rationalisation of prevailing theories of race, one in which many of most important figures in our history of the philosophy of science were very intimately involved.

In other words, academic decolonisation is ultimately about ideology critique.. but I get the sense that you don't like critique very much.

StatusNil:
I mean, I kinda am. Just not sure about you others. Maybe indulging in a heroic fantasy of "liberation" is just so much more compelling than boring old Liberalism. I get it, but I like to get my thrills in works of fiction. Less likely to end in bloodshed.

..for you.

I think that's an important qualifier. Less likely to end in bloodshed for you.

I wouldn't tarnish liberalism with your cowardice. Liberalism beheaded kings, dethroned tyrants and profaned churches. If your liberalism leads you to prefer order to justice, then you've betrayed it just as surely as you've betrayed the people you're willing to sacrifice for it.

Removing this message until facts come out.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here