that thing white ppl do when they disparage 'white ppl'

*disparages ‘white people’*

should we start a separate thread for "that thing Americans do when they disparage Europeans about racism"

for my part, last time

the wide gap in opinion on the topic of whether race can be genuinely set aside as a personal primary self-identifier in favour of other self-identifying characteristics- and the p clear (with apologies to tsoborodo as a standalone voice nationality-wise here afaict, but tbh so be it, he is in the ameeican school for the purposes) split on the strong opinions held would sugggest that there is a v definite 'american' school of thought here.

that is of no suprise to anyone who has been any length of time on ilx tbh.

the fact that the american school insist at length and repeatedly that it is not possible for other cultures to self-identify other than as ordained by this american orthodoxy is preposterous, presumptuous, etc

all other discussion, interesting or not as it may be, true or not as it may be, elides that this is the foundational dispute in the last few days of the thread.

/sorry for repetition but

The only people dividing this into “America vs Europe” as if it these ideologies were a natural outgrowth of our nationalities are those on the “ilx-european” side of the debate, imo bc it adds credence to their argument that a contrary perspective to ours *simply can’t be understood* by outsiders; I maintain that the POV that race overlays interactions across the world is not an ideology tied to any specific location but is more tied up in post colonial studies which attempt to push back at the same kind of nationalism that drives both right American and right european populist movements, and have underlying racist ideologies

rather than seeing it as my saying *you don't understand* it, can i ask you to focus on the part where you are telling the other side of the debate that *they cannot really self-identify the way they think they do*.

your reasoning behind this position is imo of secondary importance.

fwiw i think we can be sure that everyone itt would agree that race is an input into interactions across the world, its whether or not 'overlays' in yr sentence presumes to dictate the level of this which is where practically everyone on, lets give up on subtlety and call it the european side, is taking issue.

and again, im not sure where the slip from "self identifying in the first instance as white" (which i think is vv important part of the thread context) is churning into "considers race a constant underlying factor in human social dynamics" but its part if where each side here seems to be talking at cross-purposes

Man, have we not hammered this thing out yet?

we are if nothing else behaving better this time around

I promise we will have the correct response to white supremacy worked out by tomorrow at 3:15pm EST

xp

I knew you could do it.

what time is that in post-racism land

The proverbial has this been sorted has never been more sorely needed

thats

and i speak with some authority here for once

more of a revive thing

So how do we feel about white people?

My argument throughout has been about an overarching framework for racial classification that is pervasive throughout the western world. I haven't argued that racial identity has some kind of permanent primacy nor have I shown any interest in or referred at all to the notion of primary-self identifiers, mostly cause I don't think that's how identity functions.

In a given moment, the aspect of yourself that you feel is most under threat/in the spotlight will likely be your primary self-identifier whether political, racial, nationality, football team etc. I've never felt that it made sense to isolate aspects of identity and give them discrete rankings in a vacuum. No form of identity exists if there's nothing against which you're defining it.

I struggle to recall times when I've been in Nigeria and have been externally reminded that I am black. It definitely happens occasionally; maybe saw an ad for whitening soap, got passed over for expats by an obsequious bartender, but as it's not frequent and carries no element of threat or marginalisation, it doesn't stick in ones craw (that being said, more subtle signifiers would be far more apparent to me if I lived there on a permanent basis).

Now compare that with in the UK where such occurrences are part and parcel of daily life. Would you then imagine that I must feel less black when I'm in Nigeria? Of course not. It's not a given that one aspect of your identity must attenuate all others as it comes to the fore.

I have no issue with white people doing that thing as long as they're not talking directly to me when they do it.

id feel bad yet again not responding to most of yet another interesting and good post so id only say that

i *do* think thats how identity functions

i dont see where the case for the "overarching framework for racial classification that is pervasive throughout the western world" comes into play or rather why eh anyone could be castigated for not engaging with that statement (not by you, but say by others on yr behalf). its kind of a big concept to argue with tbh, seems like a major topic to introduce and we're still at the level of well youve seen the level we're at.

i mean the rest is good posting. i dont think anyone is or has been arguing against any of yr actual points and i think the experiences you have nigeria/uk is really interesting!

I think the reality of that framework being in place is undeniable. Other factors (class, poverty, work, etc) might come in to play but what underpins, for example, the North / South divide in Italy, for example, is perceived proximity to blackness. The same is probably true of a lot of other countries (Spain, Portugal, Brazil, etc) where hierarchies of whiteness exist and those where proximity to whiteness is important (India, Morocco, Mexico, etc).

I am not sure whether that has a key role in understanding, for example, Turkish hatred of Armenians, Japanese hatred of Chinese, etc or whether perceived proximity to something other than blackness (in many cases, simply being seen as less human) needs a term other than racism to describe it, but that doesn’t undermine the importance of that dominant Euro-American prism.

i dont see where the case for the "overarching framework for racial classification that is pervasive throughout the western world" comes into play or rather why eh anyone could be castigated for not engaging with that statement (not by you, but say by others on yr behalf). its kind of a big concept to argue with tbh, seems like a major topic to introduce and we're still at the level of well youve seen the level we're at.

Huh? How is his phrasing different other than being more eloquently worded, than “the POV that race overlays interactions across the world”...? Isn’t that exactly what we’ve been talking about?

And In case it needs to be restated again I’ve never said anything about ranking various identities but the difference between racial antagonism and ethnic conflict is one of kind not degree

Also!! To be clear though I think tsrobodo & i do mostly agree I am not speaking “for” anyone but myself

xps

Racial minorities quickly grow accustomed to being told that they see race everywhere and blow it out of proportion even as they bite their tongues to avoid stoking tension.

That wasn't explicitly going on itt but you have to see how the boxing out of a minority perspective as generalised-American might come off as alienating?

An area where I think America does differ to Europe is that a lot more room has been carved out within mainstream discourses for minorities to discuss their experience of race. In my experience it is much harder to have a meaningful conversation about race in the UK than in the US when in a neutral forum. (not to say America is less racist or better at dealing with race etc.)

The reason why the civil rights movement is such a touchstone for minorities the world over is that it formed the bedrock of a lexicon through which race could be articulated from the perspective of the oppressed.

However this lexicon was by no mean unilaterally-American-formed. It was borne out of deep ties and collaborations with the anti-colonial movement in Africa and The West Indies from as early as the late 19th century.

The reason why this might feel non-European goes back to this,

If America seems preoccupied with this it's because it would never be able to externalise this legacy the way in which most European powers have chosen to.

The end of empire didn't really happen for European citizenry the way that civil rights occurred inescapably in the face of Americans. The closest European countries get to confronting colonial legacies is with immigration, which has of course only served to bolster white supremacist sentiment.

Generally I'll take any kind of awkward and confused conversation over no conversation at all. I can imagine how the notion of such a framework isn't readily digestible but as it pertains to this thread I think it's vital for understanding some of the ways in which whiteness is reified.

.....

i think that might be otm..?

hmmm

It sounds otm for the UK, where most immigration debates are centered on old commonwealth countries, and it's definitely otm for France too. But there aren't really any ways in which the immigration from Turkey to Germany in the seventies, or the waves of refugees from Syria, are that big reminders of 'Empire'? In Denmark, the immigrants from our own colonies are Greenlanders, and yeah, in general they are the ones who are treated the worst, but most debates with the populist parties have to do with Islam and people from the Middle East, not the parts of the world where Denmarks colonial crimes are located, such as Ghana.

It's definitely true that the conversation is better in the US, yes, and that Europeans look to that conversation for experience. It's probably only Frantz Fanon who is as widely read as James Baldwin, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, etc? But at the end of the day, there's also a reason that both James Baldwin and Ta-nehisi Coates has been writing about feeling kinda free in France. Because the racial hierarchy is not strictly black and white, but is based on keeping down first and foremost former colonial subjects. Like in Denmark, where Greenlanders are at the very bottom. That is not to say that there isn't a global hierarchy which in broad terms are black/white, yeah, but this thing is intersectional, to use another great American term. And at least in Denmark a lot of Danes of African descent are descendants of refugees from the colonial wars, and a lot of those were upper middle class, and does a lot better in general than people from Syria or Bosnia or Iraq.

I do think tsrobodo is totally, eloquently otm, and his posts brought to mind some of my own, often fraught experiences discussing racism in France. This does not contradict my initial view, however, which is that the US paradigm makes it needlessly difficult to tackle other forms of ethnic discrimination on the pretext that ethnicity and race are purportedly incommensurate in their historical degree of gravity (in this sense, I agree with ogmor upthread when he questions the apparent ease with which Americans distinguish the two). The fact that Europeans tend to minimise the consequences of Western colonialism does not mean that Americans are correct in assuming that race systematically, universally trumps ethnicity (if these notions are to be maintained) in the sweepstakes of human horror. I do think we have much to learn from each other, and I dare hope this thread has modestly succeeded on that front.

xp

And Fred is also right to point out that the US lens is more applicable in France and the UK than in other European countries. Once again, context is key.

did we figure out if white people are good or bad yet ??

we havent actually decided what counts as white yet tbh

my favorite snack is a Kraft single wrapped around a piece of uncooked spaghetti

white people be like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uruXZadiAo0

Again it’s the euro-ilxor saying things like “Americans think race trumps ethnicity” when no one has remotely tried to rank the “degree of gravity.” It’s funny Frederick uses the word “degree” because my last post specifically said it’s a difference of kind not degree.

race and ethnicity have different dimensions, which can be seen even in the part of the thread I’m most embarrassed about, where in trying to make this point I was sub consciously, unintentionally racist; Rwanda may reflect or adopt the grammar of racial difference, but in a global context it’s an ethnic conflict. and yet I still confused the conflicts of Rwanda and Sudan in my head, the kind of confusion a black African would be unlikely to make; does that mean I’m worse “by degree” than the participants of this war? That’s not really the *point* of these conversations. the structure supersedes questions of who is “worse” than who; it arranges us in a hierarchy regardless of individual behaviors. The “American” anti racist rhetoric is about acknowledging ones structural place not about proving who is a more evil person than whoever else

The reason I think “American” ilxors like Shakey kept saying this stuff is “basic” is bc theres a tone in this thread that feels familiar to anyone who’s ever tried to point out a racist behavior (or for that matter had it happen to themselves): a defensiveness that this is about social positioning rather than the issues at hand, a way to gain social currency; that people trying to make ideological arguments are actually arguing for their own moral superiority. I bring up the Rwanda/Sudan mix up again in part to make it clear I obviously have no easy basis to make such a claim, and this is more a structure of conversation that have had many times before& is less a function of some great moral clarity than having been inducted into a conversation other people may not have access to or even have been aware of ...

it arranges us in a hierarchy regardless of individual behaviors

Is it your argument that this effect, arranging in a hierarchy regardless of individual behaviors, is not in effect in post-colonial situations that don’t involve differences in skin colour

No but my argument would be that there is no real “skin color” vacuum where we have not been impacted by the legacies of the slave trade and colonialism; that ie media perceptions of black Americans, for example, reify certain stereotypes & ideas which are broadcast all over the world. That people have notions of this hierarchy even if hey live in places where it does not affect them

Here in the states some of the most reactionary communities are those which rarely or never come into contact with people of color. But they certainly buy into the broader structure of racial hierarchy

I agree with all of that.

I’m a white British dude and given that I think it’s my responsibility to think as hard as I can about these things and part of that is knowing that my understanding of post-colonial dynamics is necessarily learned rather that forced upon me by an everyday othering / self-consciousness and I’m painfully conscious of my lack of understanding of these complexities.

But when I see people ITT repeatedly talk about British colonial exploitation of Ireland as a “conflict” it reminds me of many conversations in which British people handwave away that history. I don’t get how it helps to characterise a vicious colonial relationship as a as a little local conflict [I know no-one on this thread has used those words but that’s how it reads from this end]. I have a responsibility not to wave away a non-racial* post-colonial hierarchies which have damaged and continue to damage human beings.

*Using your definition of “race” here because that discussion but frankly if someone describes (eg) anti-Romani or anti-Irish prejudices as “racism” I wouldn’t be arguing with that either. And where I live those hierarchies do get called (and thought of as) racial.

The American/Western European racist-colonialist complex has been 'exported' elsewhere, yes, and this is one of the pernicious effects of globalisation, but to assume a strictly top-down relationship, i.e. the rest of the world just allows itself to be willingly or even subconsciously moulded by this hyperstructure, seems excessive, as though it were utterly impossible to escape the US's overpowering, 'terraforming' sphere of influence. Do you see how presumptuous this might seem to a non-American? As a side note, I also happen to be Canadian, so I'm espousing a hyphenated rather than a purely European point of view here.

xp

I mean, on the one hand parts of what you’re saying is true and reasonable and on the other hand anti blackness for example really *is* a worldwide phenomenon. I wasn’t just using American media broadcasting as an example because it has one of the bigger megaphones but as we’ve talked about continually through this thread, white supremacy predates America and exceeds its contributions

and I don’t know if you were implying this but obviously white supremacy & racism arent solely about blackness...im not saying racial conflict is solely black v white

*I *was* just using America as...

It is a worldwide phenomenon, sure – I doubt anyone in this thread would disagree – but the fact of the matter is that in contemporary France, for example, it is not as prevalent as, say, anti-Arab racism (although the US, esp. the two Bushes, has abetted islamophobia worldwide, its roots lie far deeper in French history). Once again, what irritates me is the lack of nuance. We don't need a universal hyperstructure to discuss these issues, and making such a statement does not necessarily imply that I'm minimising the problem's gravity. This is sometimes the case, no doubt about it – I consistently run into this kind of deflection whenever I'm in France – but it doesn't have to be. I'm simply uncomfortable with oversimplifications, useful though they may occasionally be.

hmm I'm not sure I'm the one trying to simplify things here--iirc this conversation metastasized from an argument that race & ethnicity could not be so easily conflated, an effort to complicate a "simplified" understanding of racism as any discriminatory practice towards a group of people

^^^

Recognising the porousness of race and ethnicity strikes me as a considerably more complex move than sticking to a preordained hierarchical model. It's not as clear-cut as you'd like it to be.

i mean, you do recognize whatever their 'porousness' these are differing concepts, right? with different real-world effects for people who deal with them?

If we collectively believe them to be different then they might as well be (hence the American pov), in the sense that they are inscribed within a given discursive context. But this doesn't mean that there isn't any overlap or even any possibility of co-incidence between these two terms. So yes, making a hard distinction between race and ethnicity is a potentially useful conceptual model but it doesn't follow that said model is relevant or even applicable to every circumstance (this goes both ways, incidentally).

but that model is relevant to a global context where racism permeates even places where the people who are subjects of that racism are absent...

One of the things that really hit home to me when I was in Uganda was flicking through a pretty trashy tabloid newspaper and seeing the way in which (mostly Indian) Asians were written about, including attempting to pin a series of petty crimes on "ungrateful Asians" on what appeared to be incredibly flimsy evidence and used as evidence of their inherent untrustworthiness. It was above and beyond anything I've read in even in the most right-wing British papers. Obviously the history of Asians in Uganda is tied up in all sorts of colonial shit which complicates matters, but the fact that this stuff was being written by black people was shocking to me at the time.

None of which is intended to invalidate anything anyone's said on this thread but it was quite a sobering lesson in how racial power dynamics assert themselves in societies.

D-40 this is how this is reading to me (and I am not saying this to try to catch you or anyone out, or put words in your mouth, but to try to understand better why the thread seems to keep circling around the same point):

- your position is that it is never appropriate or useful to think about prejudice against white people as "racism"; you think that there are other words for that and you think it diminishes our ability to understand the global model of racism where (to take a useful and true phrase) "across cultures, darker people suffer most".

- my position, which remains tentative because I am genuinely trying to listen better and learn better, is that sometimes it is useful to take a definition of racism that includes racism against people who would self-identify as white, because the origins (colonialism) and some of the effects (hierarchies imposed without reference to individual behaviours) of those prejudices *where I live* are close enough for that to be included, while remaining clear that across cultures, darker people suffer most. This can be done dumbly or in a nuanced way (I think we would prefer the latter).

I'm going to try to give an example:

Americans I know (NB IRL rather than on-board, though there's evidence of this reaction up-thread) would eye-roll at other Americans talking about "anti-Irish racism" in a US context because when they hear people talking that way they hear people trying to distract from the pressing problem of "darker people suffering most" by implying that "everyone suffers from prejudice" therefore making it possible to ignore a broader, global structure designed to disadvantage darker people. In this case it's more useful to reject the idea that it's possible to be racist against white people.

If I, on the other hand, see a white British person eye-rolling at "anti-Irish racism" I would assume they were denying (or being ignorant of) the centuries-old colonial framework of oppression and exploitation of the Irish by the British. And if my reaction to talk of anti-Irish racism is "oh that's not racism it's intra-ethnic conflict" it devalues the dynamics of that colonial history. That's not a position I want to take, so in this particular context it's more *useful* to accept that there is such a thing as racism against white people.

I've only just begun reading through this thread, but I just have to go completely wtf at this one: It’s funny Frederick uses the word “degree” because my last post specifically said it’s a difference of kind not degree.

I've literally never used that word on this thread?

my bad--confused your post with pomenitul's

re: Tim's post if it seems like i'm saying its ok for english ppl to minimize what they did to the irish, i'm not. my mom's parent were first gen immigrants from ireland. there's not supposed to be some implication that bc there are different kind of discriminations its OK, or that there are no bad guys in ethnic conflicts.

matt dc's example is, to me, a good example of what we're talking about. ultimately, the entire situation there is a product of english colonialism; the racial dispute between black and south asian people is a direct result of that legacy; Indian people were brought to create a buffer between white colonists and black citizens. This doesn't mean black people don't have prejudices, or that they don't discriminate--the assumption that they wouldn't do these things is itself racist, because it dehumanizes Ugandans into a kind of moral nobility due to their oppressed status structurally--but it does mean that when they do, it's a part of the legacy of a white supremacist power structure that predates current south asian/ugandan relations in that country

i could also point out while not identical w/ the situation in the united states by any means, there is a kind of parallel here w/ asian/black relations in the United States

My point was more that in some circumstances the best anti-racist position is to include some structural prejudice against white people in your definition of racism.

This is not to minimise or deny the framework we’re talking about.

Look: German-nationalist (which includes Switzerland and Austria) racism is real and intense and not North-South, colonial, or color-based. I also don't think it's unique in that way -- I suspect Scandinavian racism is similar, and there are probably types of racism I am not familiar with that also don't fit the North-South/colonial/paper bag test thing. The Anglo-Franco perspective isn't universal, and I think a lot of "charming" continental racists get a pass because they don't have their most intense racial hatred for targets that don't fit that perspective. But it's not like German racism has ever been a problem before, right?

...they get a pass because their most intense hatred is for targets that don't fit, I should have said.