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

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.

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.

― Tim, Friday, 10 August 2018 06:04 (one hour ago) Permalink

But... this is definitionally impossible in a system we’ve (I assume?!) agreed upon is “white supremacist.” In the global system of white supremacy it is not possible for a white person to suffer from racism—from prejudice, from discrimination, sure, though oftentimes public allegations as such seem to be used as a smoke screen tho that’s another story.

stop defining racism as anything more than racism and theres no problem here

Yeah I think I’m saying a working definition of the word racism is possible that includes white supremacism at its core (and as its key framework) but can include racism against white colonial subjects.

Someone also claimed that turks were white, so hey, that means there's pretty much no racism in Germany! I'm also pretty thrilled to hear that racism against white greenlanders is impossible, phew, that's a load off my shoulder.

But... this is definitionally impossible in a system we’ve (I assume?!) agreed upon is “white supremacist.” In the global system of white supremacy it is not possible for a white person to suffer from racism—from prejudice, from discrimination, sure, though oftentimes public allegations as such seem to be used as a smoke screen tho that’s another story.

I mean this definition is the whole problem with this thread, right? It's not even necessarily white colonial subjects - there's a certain type of racist in the UK who would have no problem with black British people (some genuinely, others at least wouldn't admit to it, which is far from the same thing) but starts frothing at the mouth at the sight or mention of first-generation white Eastern European immigrants. It's not a stretch to say that the treatment of Muslims in the UK in some ways parallels the ways in which Irish people in the UK were treated 30/40 years ago etc.

The difference is that second and third generation white immigrant communities are 'allowed' to assimilate much more quickly than non-white ones, particularly Muslims.

Someone also claimed that turks were white, so hey, that means there's pretty much no racism in Germany!

It's a mere interethnic conflict, nothing to write home about.

The thing is, D-40, race, ethnicity, volk, white supremacy, those are all social constructs, and you're taking things that are true in general - we all agree with the statement 'there is a global structure of white supremacy' - and then taking it literal to a point where it stops making sense. And those areas where social constructs based on English stops making a 100% sense will often be non-English speaking areas, and when we point this out you get extemely angry and it's all very exhausting.

If only some of these wacky continentals who subscribe to a different form of racism than "whites are best" had ever written their racist theories down. Oh well, guess it's a mystery.

Like Giuseppe Sergi and his writings on the 'Mediterranean race', you mean? Or certain strands of Italian fascism in general?

Or a little book you may have heard of called MEIN KAMPF, for Pete's sake.

Knausgaard?

That one does sort of argue that 'whites are best', though. But on second thought, I take your point (cf. the so-called Untermensch).

xp

one of the difficulties i have with the totalizing premise being espoused is it would lead to describing the Nazis as ethnicists

otm

read that as "Nazis as ethicists" and imagined the NYT trying to snag one to write a weekly column

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.

Tim your whole post was great, and i'll also cop to an even more vacuous and shallow aversion to Irish stuff in America, like Irish pride among big wite dudes and bouncers with celtic tattoos and shit is always sketchy to me, the diaspora of jockish Boston hardcore punk is probably hard to grasp not being from the U.S.

which isn't to say every American that is super into being "Irish" is racist or anything but I dunno...it's just...i get vibe from a lot of dudes that do

(I realize this is probably ridiculous but i dunno can't help it)...and maybe this is just a thing w/me but i feel like it's a "thing"

It's a thing (plus fire and police depts in a lot of cities having a large irish-american demo). Not just you. Also, the irish thing is well documented since the alt-right started making it a talking point a couple of years ago, thus the eye rolling and leaving the thread.

It really is, but why wouldn't you give an actual Irish citizen/resident the benefit of the doubt, especially when you don't know the first thing about Ireland? (Not directed at you, Yerac, just a rhetorical question.)

xpost
ok good, cuz honestly i just associate irish stuff w/racism basically

honestly, any white american person that is super in to their ancestry or ethnic identity is kinda sketch to me tbh (*past maybe 2nd generation)

(in all cases i'm talking strictly about america here to pomentul's point)

Ireland has people of color, right?

also tsrobodo was otm a lot here and I hope he isn't as irritated with this thread as I am. He seemed super patient.

nice one-two

agreed about irish-american fetishists!

Lol dmac but you’ve also suggested you don’t understand north americans’ interest of identifying with their heritage

dont think i ever said i didnt understand that. i recognise it. everyone does.

but i wont deny for a sec that certain and prominent manifestations of "irish pride" in american culture would give ppl the shivers.

That sounds more reasonable whereas what Mississippi dude made it sound like all irish americans who show some pride are sketchy/racist

My family is irish american and celebrate their heritage, they’re not all racist lol

Meaning one is and the other is kinda but we are having a positive influence on her

Not a whole lot of people as you can see

hi you should read better! - Mississippi dude

Ireland has people of color, right?

― Yerac, Friday, August 10, 2018 3:19 PM (five minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Has grown massively over the last 16 years or so. Not that many a few years before that. The odd individual I think mainly with one parent from elsewhere. I just reallised I'm thinking mainly black when I'm saying that
& a few other ethnicities had a sprinkling of presence, Asians, Indians etc but even then nowhere near as much as the UK.
I remember arriving in Dublin in '92 and finding it very rare to see another black face.
There was a sudden growth in African presence in about 2002. I think there wasa spurt of Chinese, possibly Hong kong esepceially in about 2003 in Dublin when i went over to see Arthur Lee I noticed a chinatown had grown up around teh back of the Ilac centre and along Parnell St which hadn't been there a couple of years earlier.
THere had been an area around teh South Circular rd in Dublin that had housed several waves of immigrant population over at least the 2nd half of the 20th century.

So yeah there are now several different ethnicities around .

which isn't to say every American that is super into being "Irish" is racist or anything but I dunno...it's just...i get vibe from a lot of dudes that do

(I realize this is probably ridiculous but i dunno can't help it)...and maybe this is just a thing w/me but i feel like it's a "thing"

yeah exactly dumbshit

xxpost Mark Maron had a joke that the black population of Ireland was the statue of Phil Lynott

The whole vibe of your post is filled with buts and idk’s

Anyway not that i care what you think just wanted to have a serious mo for a sec

Good luck w lyfe buddy

honestly, any white american person that is super in to their ancestry or ethnic identity is kinda sketch to me tbh (*past maybe 2nd generation)

idk I think more white Americans should dig into their ancestry and see exactly how many slaveowners they're descended from. I did.

I actually have a photo of one of my confederate officer ancestors, the family resemblance is p uncanny (fwiw I had family on both sides of the war). We also have his tax records, his um wealth decreased by 75% following the war.

(Jewish side of my family didn't arrive until after the war - went straight to Carson City, NV)

lol here's my aunt's summary - census data, not tax records, and it's considerably worse than 75%:

"John Davis Chattin b. 1807
Bought land in Rhea County, TN. Some ofthe original farm stiil owned by Chattins. He received a commission in the Tennessee Militia in 1842. He served as a colonel in the Confederacy during the war. Census data from 1860 shows his real estate worth $17,000; personal property worth $10,000. After the war real estate valued at $6,000, personal property at $500. Damn yankees."

(that last remark is a joke btw)

#witehumblebragging

one of the difficulties i have with the totalizing premise being espoused is it would lead to describing the Nazis as ethnicists

― the Joao looked at Jonny (Noodle Vague), Friday, August 10, 2018 5:18 AM (eight hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

how so? im pretty sure that the nazis didn't have great things to say about black people so that makes no sense

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.

― Tim, Friday, August 10, 2018 1:04 AM (twelve hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

you say this disclaimer but that's ... essentially the effect of it. We have a white irish person on this board explaining that you can be racist against whites because he's a part of a country that's been on the receiving end of oppressive policies or colonization or what have you, but he would (i assume?) still not define himself as IE a black irish person...which means in his mind there really are "raced" people and un-raced people... I don't know how you can argue that "racism" is what he's experienced