[flagged]
This is a definition of racism, and the one currently in vogue, but just want to point out that it's not the only one. Racism can also denote individually held prejudices, or isolated discrimination based on race.
> Anti-racism seeks to end that system.
This is indeed the stated goal, but (at least to me) seems to be self-defeatist. For instance, when reading through Ibram X Kendi's work, a number of ideas that seem flat-out wrong popped out:
* Racism against a group in power can't exist (because the redefined version of racism requires group power), as if racial power exists in a monolith.
* The only cure for past discrimination is present discrimination. (!)
* Thedesire for race neutrality is racist (not just its flawed applications)
* The idea that biology influences behavior is racist (not just the standard racist claims that some groups are inferior biologically)
I realize that these terms can mean a lot of things to a lot of people, but the above ideas of "anti-racism" definitely lead to more stifling of discussion and outright acceptance of discrimination than I've otherwise experienced.
It is the one anti-racists are using, so if one is trying to understand the term, that's the right place to start.
I get that people disagree both on whether it should be ended and if so, what the right tactics are. My goal here is not to have that incredibly deep and nuanced conversation, but just to clear up this particular point.
Yeah totally agreed, it's important to call out the definitions of terms used in any context.
The main thrust of my post was similarly to point out that if you're using definition X, you may justify some action which doesn't conform to definition Y.
In the same vein as "Patriot Act" or "People's Republic", good branding on the part of "anti-racism" can help nip naysayers in the bud. (Are you anti-patriot? Are you against the people or democracy? Are you pro-racist?)
Knowing who means what when they use terms, and being willing to differ from someone else's definition clearly, is pretty much the only way I know of to have these deep conversations with civility.
Or in your terms of branding, it shouldn't be a shock that the dominant racial group would have established a definition of "racism" that is one more convenient to them than to the dominated groups, because that branding serves to prevent challenges to their power.
Explain how you apply "anti-racism" please. If you're excluding people based on their skin color or origins, that is racism, even if they are white or asian.
> Everybody agrees that the US was hugely racist to start out and for centuries thereafter.
Speak for yourself, not everybody. If anything we were the colony to finally collapse the system after many centuries of it being standard across the world.
It's kind of a slap in the face for all those people who fought to end it.
For those more reasonable who want to know about what anti-racism is opposed to, I'd suggest reading Loewen's Sundown Towns, Kendi's Stamped from the Beginning, and Mills's The Racial Contract as beginner-friendly looks at the system of racism, its historical and intellectual roots, and how it all played out historically.
Many people were involved in this system, from the warring tribes in Africa selling prisoners, to countries like the UK setting up colonies with slaves for cotton, tobacco, etc.
We were the colony that finally stopped the system. It took a long time and a lot of blood because it was the system, but it was ended.
Given that the enslaved had been so subjugated by others of the very same race, how could the institution itself possibly be called essentially racist?
Or if you'd like a quick answer from the Confederacy's Vice President, you might read the Cornerstone Speech, which includes these words: "Our new government['s]...foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
If you're having trouble seeing the racism there, I'm not sure how else I could help.
If even you could somehow make a convincing argument that the pre-war system was not inherently racist (which you cannot), the post-war system of neoslavery would put the final nail in that coffin.
Even an answer of zero doesn't address or contradict my original point.
There's no such thing as "neoslavery". Racism was certainly used after the war to reduce labor solidarity between the white working class and the newly-freed black laborers, however, that fact also doesn't address or contradict my original point.
Maybe try suggesting some serious historical scholarship instead of ideologues.
USA was very late ending slavery, most European countries had already outlawed it long before the American civil war. USA was the colony that required a war to stop treating people like cattle, that is its history.
They were also buying those slave made goods, continuing the triangle, even well after they abolished it in their homeland.
So yes, they may have "ended" it at home, but they basically just outsourced their slavery to colonies they had setup.
This isn't true, if the American revolution hadn't happened then those slaves would have been freed peacefully already by 1833:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833
Or maybe that would have triggered an American revolution again because Americans love their slaves, I mean it happened that way as is...
But the UK still continued to buy US cotton, knowing full well it was enabling the slave trade to continue.
And the most important point was they had setup all of these colonies with these systems in the first place.
> we were the colony to finally collapse the system after many centuries of it being standard across the world.
That is blatantly false. That was my point. You are right the Europeans weren't angels, but you were absolutely wrong there, America was the colony that was dragged kicking and screaming to abolish slavery long after everyone else had already done so, it absolutely wasn't the colony that finally collapsed the system of slavery it was pushed by everyone else to end it and then still had to go through a civil war doing it.
The UK even continued slavery in Indian colonies until 1843. They only abolished sugar plantations because it was not profitable anymore.
If the American colonies didn't rebel from the UK, they may have not abolished the cotton plantations themselves because they highly depended on it.
It's a bit disingenuous to put words in my mouth.
> > Everybody agrees that the US was hugely racist to start out and for centuries thereafter.
But your bio says you are a deliberate troll, so presumably you knew that.
You don't think it's me saying that the US was part of a system that had existed long before it was even a country, even though I said just that?
BTW my bio is a homage to Socrates being persecuted for asking questions and going against the mob.
I think we're done conversing, if you could even call it that.
How many grains of sand does it take to form a big pile?