If you want us to stop objecting to your language, than stop trying to make this a racial issue.
Was it a racial issue when the British sent your convict forefathers to Australia? Did your ancestors all of sudden began seeing themselves as brown people subjugated by the white King?
I have a feeling normie opinion in the coming weeks is going to be that universities and police should have ended these encampments. There are an awful fucking lot of normies in Wisconsin.
Your approach is kind of weird here.
I didn’t say it was simply a “racial issue”. Your first post was in response to a question about how to talk about the threads of racial supremecy and racial hierarchy that absolutely do exist in the conflict.
The reason I didn’t respond the first time was because you seemed to be oversimplifying what I was saying. I mean, specifically, what language did I use that you have a concern with?
Side note, but actually, the Australian colonial history shows exactly what I’m talking about but in reverse.
The Catholic Irish went from the bottom of the racial hierarchy in England to part of the white ruling racial group that oppressed first nations folks and non-white immigrants. So yeah. Race does change in context, for sure.
In that context, while that transition was playing out, an Irish convict who was murdering Aboriginal folks in the frontier wars could certainly have viewed themselves as the oppressed in the colonial hierarchy.
Are you taking about some conflict other than the situation between the Palestinians and the Israelis?
Or maybe I don’t understand words like “racial” and “absolutely do exist.”
Or another example from Australian history.
Southern Europeans in Australia (Greeks, Italians, Maltese etc) were absolutely non-white when they first immigrated to Australia in large numbers.
That has changed in recent years, and they would be considered part of the white-european majority.
FWIW, Irish cops in present-day NYC who are held accountable for misdeeds against minorities also see themselves as being oppressed.
This is what I mean by racial elements absolutely existing as part of the conflict
I would welcome you pointing to more specific parts of my post you have a concern with.
It’s like if I called the North Irish “brown people” because they’ve been colonially oppressed by the English. I get what point is being made but it’s a weird and unhelpful way to describe the palest humans on Earth. I don’t even think “brown people” is super useful in American politics very often --does that exclude black people? White Hispanics?
with violence like we’re seeing last night? that seems doubtful. ofcourse you could be right with how the mainstream media is pushing insane amounts of propaganda. cnn was giving a segment that could have been straight from newsmax.
eta- also what does the swing voter that wasn’t going to vote biden, but now that the police beat up a bunch of 20yr olds protesting the mass killing of civilians they might consider it look like exactly?
whole thing just reeks of politicians 10-15 years from now retconning about how they were against the heavy handed authoritarianism on display and how they were proud to lead the way for human rights…
provided we dont full on descend into authoritarianism by then.
I know what Yuv wrote, but I don’t know if “racial supremacy” is the best term for it, at least not in a way that typical Americans would use the term. The larger point is that it’s just irrelevant to the discussion, since it’s all about land, not about who sees themselves as superior due to their skin color.
Some friendly fire going on here. Republicans are trying to draft an extremely cynical “antisemitism” bill, but they might risk offending actual antisemites.
Exactly, because fine gradations of race and hierarchy are much more important to those within the dominant group than to those being oppressed by that group as a whole.
Race may be a social construct, but people in general need things like social constructs in order to comprehend reality. If not race, they would use something else to create hierarchies to organize things.
What im trying to say is that anyone framing this as brown vs white makes two distinct claims.
The first is a claim about actual skin tone.
The second is a whole raft of claims about group privilege, history, relative power, group hierarchy and ultimately, who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed.
Which is of course why these terms are so hotly contested.
My argument is that while the first claim has obvious problems, as shown with Yuvs video, the second group has some validity. The attack on the overall framing is therefore often not just about skin tone, but rather about contesting the second group of claims.
And as I’ve said multiple times, I would not personally frame it as brown vs white, because it’s imprecise, doesn’t capture the nuance, and opens oneself up to exactly this discussion we are having here.
“Brown” doesn’t have to mean literally brown-skinned.
I just don’t see any incremental utility in viewing the situation through a racial lens. It neither makes the situation easier to understand nor opens additional avenues to a possible resolution.
To stretch this analogy of the Australia further.
Imagine a Aboriginal person in early colonial Australia says to the white guy stealing their land.
“You english are all colonizers and land thieves and have dispossessed my people.”
If the response is “actually my grandparents were Irish and I came here as a convict”
Is the aboriginal persons statement completely invalid?
What violence? How many dead? How many injured?
I’m telling you that to normie voters this is all nonsense from college lefties and the encampments should’ve just been cleared out from the start.
The narrative that the police are brutalizing people just doesn’t have much to back it up. The Emory professor getting roughed up over bs and what…protestors getting pepper sprayed after refusing to leave?