Holla Forums, approximately when do you believe all the non-white peoples of the world are going to stop being racially conscious and embrace the notion of 'humanity' and 'class consciousness' in its place?
Do you have some sort of timetable, or estimate, or even guesstimate?
As someone who can speak Chinese (Mandarin) and has spent time in the Far East, I'm genuinely curious as to opinions on this, because I truthfully and honestly do not see it happening. Ever.
Other urls found in this thread:
immigration.go.kr
jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk
immi-moj.go.jp
youtube.com
al-monitor.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
wew, OP sure came here to have an honest debate
No shit I have an opinion on the matter. I'm curious as to how you guys reconcile the intense ethnocentrism of non-white peoples (see Libyan Arabs killing and driving out Black Africans after Ghaddafi's fall as just one example) with the idea of a movement that is inherently internationalist.
When Jesus comes back all will bow down to him and all tongues and all peoples will confess him as Lord.
How long have you been waiting for that?
When there's multi-culti is in all the world.
I'm a country that was diverse since a really long ago, I remember when I was a kid we had the concept of ethnic groups, and they weren't based on race, like you would see blacks, meds, partly-Semites in one ethnic group hating someone from the same race belonging to another ethnic group.
Today ethnic groups aren't as common as they were, no one identify with his ethnicity anymore… which is good.
You have to figure out what "white" is first.
For example, when are norse going to stop seeing themselves as different or better than Mediterranean people?
Oh, let me guess… You have nothing to do with europa and americanocentrism uber alles, right?
Which country are you from, out of interest?
Mass immigration for the purposes of settlement tends to be unidirectional though, in that its only occurring from non-western countries into western countries.
People may bring up the Emirates, but there's a difference here. Those are expat-heavy states but the expats rarely, if ever, gain the right to PR or citizenship. They're transients in other words. Likewise for most in Singapore, KSA, elsewhere.
How about all the eastern europeans in GB then?
People of European descent. But that's neither here nor there nor does it answer my question. It's an attempt at semantic derailment.
I am a Greek.
It's simple. Everyone here is secretly Civic NazBol but larping as if they weren't.
GB is a western country. What's your point?
Fuck off Nazbol, I'm black.
Fuck off Nazbol, I'm chinese.
FUCKING NAZBOLS
t. Jewish member of Holla Forums
Morocco.
We have mass immigration from center-Africa too.
I'm not saying mass immigration is the solution, I said multi-culti. Actually mass immigration IS A BAD THING if the locals aren't agreed with it.
Oooooh!
Ok then!
So, are Albanians white? Cause they sure aren't arabs!
Also, are you white? Cause, again, the norse don't think of us as whites!
And Poland is not?
My point is, it's not about race. It's about the spook of ethnicity.
It may happen in our lifetimes Holla Forums-kun.
Yes.
Yes.
And I think it depends on what Nordic person you're talking about.
Did I suggest that it wasn't? I'm not sure how this invalidates what I said:
You responded to this with:
It seems like a textbook non-sequitur. Doesn't it?
According to your demography stats, Morocco is 99% ethnic Berber-Moroccan.
Are you aware of the bad reputation Moroccans have in Europe? How do you feel about that? I'm not accusing you, but honestly if it was my people doing such things, I'd feel a deep sense of shame. Do you feel shame about it?
Bear in mind similar plans have been mooted in Japan for the past four decades and nothing has come of them.
Actually East Asian states do accept immigrants, but as I illustrated above, its on a temporary basis. If SK, PRC, Taiwan, Japan etc accept more, it will simply be more visas for skilled workers on a temp basis.
Ethnocentricism doesn't just appear out of nowhere. Material conditions help, and capitalism usually makes for a perfect shitstorm. Why would socialist force immigration the way capitalist do, for instance?
You're just asking for heavy /int/ shitposing fam.
Do you think ethnocentrism may be related to evolution, as in the various group evolutionary strategy theories? Consider the idea that peoples in more densely populated areas had selection against outgroup altruism.
Here's a good paper that models different group evolutionary strategies against each other:
jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk
I'm not surprised the /int/ shitposters who do the ">x >white" thing are mostly non-white LARPers and liberals tbqh m8.
Paternalistic nonsense. What you are essentially arguing for is people to tolerate you on the basis of you being white, and not on your own humanity. Framing your question around such a kind of tolerance is implicitly racist. Basically you are saying "We have different cultures. What can we do? We can only tolerate each other with additional segregation from time to time if necessary." Where Žižek said that you would be depriving them of dignity and responsibility here it is now the opposite; you are taking absolutely no blame for the politics and instead projecting the perverse form of humiliation onto someone else.
My question did not have anything to do with white people, either implicitly or explicitly. The bulk of the world is non-western (ie non-white) and therefore most racial conflict in the world is between different non-white groups by definition, see the tension and conflict between sub-saharan blacks and Libyans I referenced earlier as one example.
You don't even need to invoke white people in this discussion to begin with. In lieu of white people, protracted, bloody racial conflicts would continue to exist, as they always have done - and - in my opinion, always will do.
I can't seem to find anything relating to "multiculturalism" in the japanese document.
The best I can find is "acceptance" of foreign workers, as in "business is in need of cheap foreign labor, deal with it".
immi-moj.go.jp
That you only can talk about non-white idpol says much about your feelings of idpol in general. Idpol is idpol is idpol.
Which document?
That's doubtful. Remember that your point is based on a misunderstanding of Japanese immigration policy that many westerners have, namely that Japan doesn't already accept immigrants (it does, just not for purposes of settlement en masse).
The idea that white racial consciousness is inherently bad is a popularly accepted meme in the western world. Outside of the west, the idea of say, Arab or Japanese or Indian racial consciousness being inherently bad isn't popularly accepted in these countries, so I'm positing the question of when you think it will become a marginalized view to hold.
This just not true. There's even no concept of "race" here. Most people will either say Berber or "Arab", while the Arabs are most likely to be Meds, sub-Saharan, or actual Arabs (so rare).
The misconception is from that natives are Berbers and that everyone here is Berber got Arabized but it's just false. Is your source Quora or something like that?
Well, European companies does sell working contracts to Moroccans ($8k - $16k), this caused immigrating to Europe be a popular dream between criminals with no future or proper education. Effectively a visa program targeting Moroccan criminals.
I have no shame about it whatsoever.
I linked it in my post friend :^)
It isn't, my point was about the republic of korea's plans; I'm just dispelling your ramblings about nonexisten japanese policy.
What we need is a cohesive critique of identity politics in itself, not one that explicitly singles out an identity, effectively recreating idpol. Christ, thousands of years after Socrates and you still haven't figured out that merely giving an example of something doesn't say what that something is?
Personally, I don't care for this "racially conscious" good or bad shit you want to talk about. This "inside v outside" mindset is a much more dangerous meme, literally the idea being apartheid global capitalism.
There seem to be conflicting views on this:
youtube.com
al-monitor.com
No, the CIA world factbook.
Why not, out of interest? I mean I used to date a girl, French Belgian, who was near-constantly harassed by Maghrebi men in the neighborhood in Brussels where she lived.
If it was Greek men doing the harassing, I wouldn't have been able to look her in the eye. I would have felt deep shame about how my compatriots acted and done my best, along with my own friends, to ostracize such people.
We'll have to wait and see, like I said the DPJ in Japan have mooted more permissive policies in the past and they've always been shot down.
What policy are you referring to here that is "non existent"?
The thing is, regardless of how you personally feel about race, by virtue of it being meaningful to most of the world, it is of relevance to you too.
The Japanese Communist Party is one of the biggest on the entire planet
And here we come with the projection again.
In the US. Because they need it or people will start questioning the system, instead of fighting over "PC Bro!".
Again, "white" is an unclear term and you choose to see yourself as white. If you ask a british nazi, he'll tell you Slavs are white niggers.
Also, how come Albanians don't want to abandon their ethnicity and have such a bad reputation in Greece, even if "White"?
You faggot, you are not the country you were born in! You are an individual!
Did you also post the lemmings comic?
Do you support Golden Dawn too?
Should I get my can?
God is meanigful to most. Being atheist is then invalid?
The fact that "most" of the world believes in spooks doesn't make them real or relevant.>If it was Greek men doing the harassing, I wouldn't have been able to look her in the eye
If you really think I'm "projecting" my own beliefs onto say, the Chinese, then I'd advise you to study the language and go and make friends with some actual Chinese people and discuss these issues with them candidly.
To me this seems more like wilful ignorance, you want to believe the rest of the world is as committed to "anti racism" as you are. That it's not just a white, western phenomenon.
Japan is a country that has been governed by a party to the right of Donald Trump politically for virtually all of the past 50 years, non-stop (albeit with a couple of brief interruptions).
Besides, many Japanese claim the JCP is basically Zainichi.
But that's precisely my point. I'm not saying that you're projecting your own beliefs on any particular identity at all. It's just some vague blob that "isn't white."
My argument rests on the RoK immigration plans, which seeks to normalize foreigners into Korea through education and awareness, this is a clear attempt at creating a multicultural society where "being korean" would no longer be linked to being """"racially korean"""".
You said this has been attempted in Japan previously, yet I cannot find anything on the sort in their immigration document I linked beforehand, so I'm gonna need proof on that.
Typical.
AFAIK they take the stats from the govs, and our gov never did any poll based on race.
I simply don't feel associated with nationality or race. I only associate my identity with Islam, and things that done in the name of Islam does after bother me/concern me.
Rude.
I know a few "British Nazis", they don't feel that way about South Slavs.
Well, many Albanians in Greece have the problem they are associated with organized crime.
I wouldn't put them on the same level as say, Afghans or Arabs though (see: en.wikipedia.org
Compared to these people, even a petty Albanian criminal is a da Vinci by contrast.
Is a dog born into a stable a horse?
And do you believe that their ethnic background has nothing to do with why they are known to harass women so readily, primarily white women?
Do you know the sorts of things the Pakistani abusers of white girls in the UK told said girls, that "white girls are only good for sex and so on", and you're trying to tell me there's no racial animus behind these sorts of actions?
If we don't stand up for our women, then who will? You think black women or brown women give a shit about them? They despise them and envy them.
That's metaphysics. Race exists on a phylogenetic level.
My point is to wait and see whether this white paper materializes into anything substantial.
Was that a document exhaustively detailing the history of mooted changes to Japanese immigration policy?
I'm fairly certain it wasn't.
Your government doesn't ask the question in censuses?
And other sources seem to believe that racial tension and conflict is an issue in Morocco.
I see.
Why can't people on this board wrap their heads around this kind of argument? I don't necessarily agree with it but I'm baffled by the handwaving non-responses it always receives. You saying "well it's spooked lel you're a nazi for even thinking about this at all" isn't going to do a damn thing about racial consciousness anywhere else. I have come to believe you're merely choosing to be ignorant of this fact because it's inconvenient, or you think acknowledging it is "dangerous". I can't find any other explanation. It's a brute fact of how many people in the world are and will continue to be for the forseable future. It's not an ought, it's an is. I see no significant cultural or material pressure in much of the world to abandon ethnic identities any time in the next several decades, and some deeply ingrained cultural values are simply diametrically opposed. It's the same as ignoring religion. It's not just going to disappear because you've decided you're enlightened enough to be above it.
OP here. You actually summarized my POV better than I could.
Far from traveling and learning more about foreign races making more open minded towards left-wing attitudes towards race and ethnicity, it has done the exact opposite. I simply do not see racial consciousness ever disappearing in any meaningful way, therefore I think it's a fool's errand for one race to play "racial universalist" while all the others are playing racial tribalists.
I'm sure Holla Forums can understand the end result of such a scenario…
No. and people will answer the race question wrong anyway.
Even me I have no idea what race should I fill in dating websites…? what race you think should I fill?
There's racial tension with center-Africans. Not with Black Moroccans btw… means the problem isn't race here.
I lived in two different neighborhood in two different cities full of center-Africans, one is close to the capital where there's center-Africans working and living their happy life which is good. I never noticed any tension or problem… even when it comes to crime I would say it's lower that Moroccans crime rate
Another one is in the north were center-Africans have the goal to enter Spain forcefully (to Setta, Spain in North Africa specially) since they get refuge if they did. Most center-Africans there live in the forest and don't work and just steal food to eat and try to enter Setta daily. Some of them even took over people's apartments. And they just don't care since they consider themselves temporary.
The last group are the ones are the ones causing the division the most.
Can you provide some proof of this? As in, a picture of a Moroccan census form or something?
So there is racial tension, that was my initial point. You're just drawing lines as to where it begins and ends now.
Capitalism will break down regardless of how much race-consciousness different ethnic groups have.
It is likewise not going to disappear merely because we look at it. If anything, it is exacerbating it, becoming a pathological cause that one either devotes their life to or take the civic route of tolerance. Even if you are being provoked on the basis of your identity, even if other outside people are suffering for being targeted on their identity, they do not need additional pandering towards it. What they need is real, concrete help, not petty "academia" discussing how important one's race is.
Do you actually believe civic identity is meaningful in any sense?
I mean, for it to be meaningful it has to be selective, and American citizenship has become, over the past 40 years, anything but selective. Let alone even more permissive naturalization processes like the British one.
No one really knows what "British" or "American" mean anymore because they aren't tied to anything tangible, they're just tied to a travel document.
That's why Black Americans identify as Black first, Hispanic Americans as Hispanic first, Asian Americans increasingly as Chinese/Korean/Asian first and, increasingly, White Americans are starting to see themselves as a self-conscious group too.
Then they are not nazis. And the british nazis don't like the polish so much, right now.
Ooooh! You'd say such different thing if we were back in 1999!
Yes. It's not about "ethnic background" (there goes race, now it's ethnic), it's about material conditions.
And, are you a dog? Or a horse?
Individuals. I can report you that back in the day, I was in Moscow and some brits I know got harassed by russians. AKA Russians are harassers of brits? Or is it that, because of how they were raised and the material conditions they live, and so on.
There is no predisposition in "Pakis" to harass "White grills". It's all material conditions.
The women? The are equal.. Let them stand up for themselves.
What, white women? If they are friends and so on, sure. You on the other hand, despise the black because this is the scapegoat you chose.
You cannot even define races, yet they exist.
Are Andalusians white?
Cypriots? What if they are mixed with arabs and jews? Still white cause the surname is ok and they look white enough?
If you were following the nazi code of race we could talk. But then we'd be filthy Greeks that are a bit worse than Italians, though better than Slavs.
Now, would you kindly go back to pol?
America is becoming a sort of multi-ethnic Empire state. And democracy only engenders racial tension in such tribal imperial states. Sans a strongman we all know what the end result is in time.
A PATHOLOGICAL CAUSE
Cf:
How does acknowledging a fact, that is in fact, a significant and massive problem for any internationalist socialist project, and one that is generally utterly ignored by people on this board, somehow going to automatically lead into a pathological scholastic over focus? Are you saying a basic truth about how people tend to be is so overwhelming it consumes anyone who accepts it? That doesn't even make any sense.
...
Have you conducted a poll?
Well yes, getting a fuller understanding of the breadth of racial diversity has led to a firmer understanding of what subhumanity truly is.
I'm h. sapiens. I'm a mammal like any other, with taxonomic sub-divisions within the broader group.
So you deny mendelian inheritance now.
This was conducted on a systematic scale throughout dozens of towns and with tens of thousands of girls. One girl was raped by three separate pakistani gangs within a single day, on one occasion by a taxi driver she ran to for help and his male relatives.
This is a problem with a specific community and a specific type of sexual abuse perpetrated within it, with a clear racial animus.
No shit it was because of how they were raised, but that has nothing to do with socioeconomics and everything to do with race and religion.
You believe men and women are neurologically the same?
Classic continuum fallacy. Because red and yellow form to make orange, does this mean red and yellow do not actually exist?
Vietnamese shitposter.
Yes. People who become inundated with identity politics eventually drink the kool aid.
See:
False equivalence. It's of relevance to you because it will, inevitably, directly impact you or those close to you, or your descendants (I realize I'm reaching here for a lot of Holla Forums).
Can you provide some proof of this? As in, a picture of a Moroccan census form or something?
The census form is filled from the employee. I have no idea how I can get a copy of it.
Of course there's cases here and there. But generally there's isn't (yet, and I hope never) the uproar you hear in the West about race.
Also young people are more likely to oppose giving "refuge" to center-Africans than old people.
Absolutely absurd.
But it's a big fucking problem for international socialism.
It is not a problem for international socialism because there is no such thing as a homogenity that one can return to for security should the socialist transitory state fail. Go ahead, show me a pure race.
Seems legit.
There isn't an uproar because you're all broadly of the same racial group. I very much doubt that a significant proportion of Black Africans are a part of the body politic, if your own leaders hold Amazigh, who aren't really sub-saharan to begin with, in such disregard.
Racial conflict is a function of racial diversity. The West is experiencing more dislocation and conflict over race in the modern era because it's an increasingly racially diverse place.
SPOOGS : DDDDD
Democracy is a shell game in the United States, fine-tuned by the security state to achieve an acceptable result. The dreaded darkies aren't going to seize the State apparatus.
Anyway, it really doesn't matter if people identify is Black, or Hispanic prior to being American. What matters is that they agree to the social contract and not decide that gaining power for the race trumps the social contract. It appears to me that white Americans are currently most interested in forgoing the social contract to restore the economic status of a subset of their race, as in, rural Americans and Americans in the Rust Belt states in particular. If people don't agree to this, the socialist "state" or governing body will just split up to accommodate this.
What fucking socialist transitory state? The one that's going to spring up endogenously across the world, or the vanguard that's going be lead from the West and capture the world through force?
What has this got to do with anything? I don't give a shit about racial purity.
I means that should the people want to revolt against their government and form a new state there is going to be no homogenous grounds for them to form it. They are going to need something much stronger than that.
Individualism is a cancer.
Not necessarily, but they'll make politics increasingly more dysfunctional. Increasingly more about racial spoils and set-asides and increasingly less about actual issues.
Really? Non-White Americans have been voting as blocs for economic reasons for decades and now Whites show the slightest hint of doing the same, they're the most egregious offenders?
Not that guy, but I'm assuming you're predicating this on the assumption there's a global socialist superstate that occupies all land on earth, for this:
To make sense?
There are plenty of homogeneous states.
...
There aren't. Artificial homogeneity maybe, probably based around a police state or cusine rather than anything racial.
No, race is not real because people believe in it. Race is meaningful because people believe in it. If a black mob is burning down a white part of town, then your own belief in racelessness isn't going to magic them away to some metaphysical realm.
Race is real by the way, but that's a separate discussion to the one we're currently having.
Work 9 months as a taxi driver in London and see for yourself.
Sometimes things are not that simple.
Also, no, it doesn't need to be global. It just needs to encompass some amount of people and already you will find heterogeny.
Hypothetically yes, that is the premise of internationalism, however it has failed. Do you think sectarianism will not be an issue across diametrically opposed cultures? My concern is that capitalism will collapse into totalitarianism before such a socialist movement ever gets off the ground again because of the simple minded idealism about the feasibility of such a global movement while brushing off any questions about it as "pathologically obsessive identity politics".
Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, China, Mongolia, all of the Gulf, most of Eastern Europe and the Balkans etc.
No, it's just called "having an immigration policy that discourages settlement", that's all.
I actually do work in London.
...
Amazigh aren't race, you could say ethnicity. A lot of "Arabs" are actually Amazighs originally.
Politicians here never mention "race". And so are people don't care for it…
I will try to give "theories" why:
* It can be because in developed countries where people care the most about economy, they don't care about race. So race is a #firstworldproblem
* It can be that there's no strong concept of race
* It can be because of Islam, I know almost every Moroccan will prioritize his identity as Muslim before nationality or race. It isn't magical, Jews stick togheter even obviously Ashkenazi Jews looks just like the typical European and Mizrahi jews looks just like the typical Middle Eastern. Not to mention the rest of Jews races from all over the world.
It would be one thing for a 13th century peasant to claim privately he didn't believe in Catholic dogma, it would be quite another for him to claim that this dogma was not a meaningful and real part of the world that impacted him and those around him.
Did you not read the article I linked?
This is actually not necessarily true. In orthodox circles Mizrahim and Sephardic Jews are shunned as marriage partners, Ashkenazim consider themselves superior.
Well yeah, Islam is basically Arab imperialism by a different name.
Getting awful liberal in here.
How? explain how?
Most Muslims aren't even Arab.
I will stop talking to you, you seems out of touch.
Man you are completely incapable of making a cogent argument in favor of your position aren't you?
You're the one who was using a 13th century model for what we should be doing right now.
I didn't do that at all. I'm illustrating the distinction between believing in the veracity of something and it being meaningful you dense moron.
I'm not even typical Holla Forums, I actually like some of the econ discussion on Holla Forums but some of you just strike me as teenagers from reddit or some faggoty antifa facebook group.
Some old concepts are outdated, and some are old wisdom that should be revived
Not him but you really do not understand the difference between is and ought, the metaphor made perfect sense. No one gives a feasible plan for other people to stop believing in what they do, a timeframe, anything. Which I can only assume is due to crippling Euro or whatever centric view, which is amazingly, the very kind of ignorance racism is based on. Billions of people aren't going to suddenly give up what they believe because some white neet on an imageboard called them spooked. How many languages is your favorite book even translated into?
And I'm indicating that your argument still has flaws, regardless of whether you say meaningful or belief system. You're just playing semantics and resorting to ad hominems right now instead of making an actual argument.
So you were a hater. All makes sense now.
Read Islamic history. Gulf were the central Caliphate only for 30 years, the rest was Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Turkey…
Biggest Muslim scholars weren't even Arabs, most of them Iranis, Afghani, Pakistani, North Africans, Russians…
The revolt against Ottomans was against The Young Turks. Who were Turkish nationalists that took over power after Ottomans effectively lost the war. Read history or don't talk about it user.
kek
fuck off, do you even know what thread your in?
...
A cunning stratagem, but will it pay off? Care to tackle my question about the viability of an unified genuine international socialist movement emerging any time soon?
There is a wierd fetishism of third world people as some great heroes. They are not inherently better or worse they are people plain and simple. Most of them are good people just like people in general. Many third worldists think third world people are not racist or something. I mean just talk to some Arab people about blacks. Many people discriminate just on tribe. It is very strange they seem to not know any third world person.
...
I'm not the OP, I specifically said I do not believe in racial homogeneity.
And if you weren't talking about racial homogenity then you weren't actually responding to my argument but trying to move the goal posts/playing semantics.
What argument? If people want to form nat-soc governments they need to ignore ethnic differences within their country? Ok. That might get you Socialism in one country/with nationalist characteristics again. I'm talking about a unified global international movement.
Never understood why people who are miserable because they can only think things in us v them have to make everyone else as miserable as them.
Kill everyone. Let the aliens take over.
literally more of a LARPer than Holla Forums Nat Socs. At least their dreams could actually become reality.
An international Socialist movement ought to involve an organization in each country, working together to develop socialism. What exactly would this entail?
Personally, my views lean toward left-accelerationism in a way, so, ideally, we would want to work towards abolishing wage labor, the fascist state, private property, and money through developing the productive forces of the world so that humans might be largely removed from production, and that production for use might take place instead of production for profit. Another key element is ensuring that the global proletariat does not get exterminated by the bourgeoisie en route to accomplishing this, since the aforementioned technological development will provide the bourgeoisie with ever-mode advanced means of enforcing their property rights.
That's what I'm saying though. Socialists refuse to talk about this stuff, and I'm saying as it stands it's not feasible.
If race is biological, you should be able to put forward a theory for race which works for every human, but you seem to be unable to do that.
You have to not only prove that racial groupings exist biologically, but further that the racial groupings you describe are the "correct" ones, and further that these groupings have any effect on peoples' own view of race, which is mainly different to any attempt at a biological justification for it.
Race is a social construct, and a great hint toward this fact is that the conception of race not only varies widely by time, but even more widely by location. Who is considered "black" changes for those inside Africa (e.g Charles Mills is considered 'brown' in his native Jamaica but 'black' in the US), and indeed there was a poster on this board just earlier who categorised someone as white, and another person more familiar with the region said that they would not be considered white. The Irish were not considered white for some time, along with mediterraneans in the US.
The concept of race has historically been founded in pseudoscience and groupings based entirely on outward appearance rather than genetics. To claim that the modern conception of race is anything different to the historical one would be ahistorical.
Let's start from the assumption (which I agree with) that racial concepts ought to be abandoned. Why exactly would there be a need for people to abandon it? Some people will believe stupid things no matter what you tell them. If you want people to stop believing things, probably the best thing to do is to educate children firstly and secondly to educate adults. You do that using propaganda and debate.
I really don't see a reason to care about these people who will cling to their conceptions, despite being shown that they are wrong.
On the other hand it could be a problem for revolution. I think it's easiest just to say that there is no hope for the adult populace, you need to reach the children first.
Again, talking about it has done nothing. Look at all the "racial consciousness" you have on Holla Forums. All you've gotten out of it is a cancer.
You seem to be confused, race can be both socially constructed and biological. This is the reason that biologists endlessly quarrel about the taxonomic status of groups like h. erectus, let alone those within h. sapiens.
Taxonomy in of itself is a social construct. That doesn't mean it isn't based on biology.
It's also not true that the foundational basis of race and science is pseudoscientific, given that the genomic age has proven a lot of what physical anthropologists postulated 200 years ago.
These are medium term goals / ideals, hardly much of a plan sorry, the world is pretty complex.
How do you propose to kick off this mass education program across the entire world?
Holy shit Holla Forums has nothing to do with this. "White" racial consciousness is irrelevant. The problem is the left is sectarian enough as it is. Do you really have such a cloistered view of the world that your only frame of reference is image boards?
Does America really discourage racial identity? As far as I can make out the center left encourage non-white racial consciousness for the purposes of what they see as a broad non-white coalition for progressivism.
The problem with this is: Are those non-white peoples really voting for progressive policies or because they see the arrangement as a tribal quid pro quo?
...
In America you can be white if your skin is tan, and you have black hair and brown eyes.
They are mostly voting for transfer payments and because they can't exactly vote for the Confederate Party, which is what the Republicans are at the moment. Most black or hispanic people don't care too much about progressives' social platform, homophobia is big in the black community for example. The Democrats used to be the Confederate Party, but that changed with FDR.
🍀🍀🍀Irishmen🍀🍀🍀 weren't white until they were.
All racial conscioussness is relevant. Whether from white or non-white especially when both claim to cause the other with great pride. Again, your need to protect your identity here to us looks pathological to anyone with a brain. And on an anime bulletin board of all places you feel the need to bolster up a defense for every artifact of culture you can hold on to against a torrent of…what? Nothing. My argument stands that talk has done nothing and that instead of trying to help people with real, concrete standards, you just want to play a little idpol game because it makes you feel morally superior.
Lmao, for the last time I'm not OP, I don't give a shit about white identity. You've basically just decided that discussing this is pointless based on a stereotype that you're not even talking to right now.
Yet you feel the need to bring it up everytime points out how ideological you're being by ignoring all sides.
Anyway, first I get criticized for saying that race is irrelevant, and then another for saying it's all relevant using the same sort of basis for my argument. The truth is, you racialists who pretend to be so intellectual and scientific have no actual morals standards by which you hold yourself by. You only tell others what to do, what to think, how the conversation should go on.
No I'm not. I'm talking about one thing and one thing only, the feasibility of socialism. The only issue that should matter.
There is no contradiction.
That you think the feasibility of socialism rests on race is clear enough. If you didn't want to talk about race then you're only here to mix up discussion and feel superior to everyone.
In what way "biological"? If race is indeed biological, then the social ontology of race is not only irrelevant, but probably wrong. It is irrelevant because it would be as stupid as saying that rocks are just a social construct etc.
The words we use for these "biological races" may be socially constructed, and the values we assign to them might be too, but if there is some genetic demarcation then it's hard to say, other than by pure equivocation, that a person isn't of race, beacuse race simply becomes a shorthand version of saying "has biological features", which is a matter of fact.
If it's not backed up by anything, then it's pseudoscientific. The conceptions of race formulated in the 18th century (the classic "three race" view for example) was pseudoscience designed post-hoc to justify the dominion of "whites" over others, or at least "blacks".
Race as a scientific concept (other than perhaps social science) is silly; it has no biological basis other than the fact that certain populations share certain outward features, and based on those features we categorise people. Race is a convenient, but ultimately imprecise and incomplete formulation of the division of humanity. Just because it works in many cases, it does not mean it's worth keeping and certainly not that it's scientific.
You may as well be using a mathematical proof that you prove only by listing several cases in which it is true. Unfortunately it is not valid unless it is *always* true.
Again, varying conceptions of race across time lend credence to the idea that there is no true, eternal racial classification from a biological ontology.
I meant more on ethnicity and cultural incompatibilities. This doesn't mean race is literally real. I should have said ethnic consciousness. You're doing an awful lot of psychoanalysis and arguing with apparitions, it's hard to see what you're actually trying to say.
And yet morticians can determine race from the cranial features of a skull alone, along those three primary divisions.
Because there is clear phylogenetic concordance among putative racial groups.
Because there is clear genetic distance (on the fixation index scale) between said groups.
This is like saying because everyone until Newton had fairly crude understanding of light and physics, physics doesn't actually exist.
Your entire argument is:
1. A continuum fallacy.
2. The belief that social constructs invalidate biology.
And again, I ask, what is another's opinion to mine? You say it's meaningful because others tell me is, but why can't we tell them their "meaning" is a statistical fiction, never maintained with any coherence or consensus, least among them taxonomists and population geneticists? Why is it that we must constantly sort people into this and that instead of understanding it is all individuals which comprise a society?
Let me elaborate again, it's completely disingenuous to paint my argument as "the feasibility of socialism rests on race", which is crude racism/"racialism", the kind of which I'll have absolutely nothing to do with. You've put a lot of effort into characterizing why you think I'm arguing this position but apparently not a lot of thought into what it is I'm trying to say. Your argument boils down to "well we'll just tell them they're wrong". How? This is an absurdly reductive view of debate that is frankly, rather liberal "free market place of ideas". The International has been dissolved. There isn't a global socialist movement right now. Do you understand what the severity of the situation is?
That's not determining race, that's inferring race from the fact that people usually grouped into that race have the genetics to produce that skull shape.
I said it lends credence to the idea, just as the fact that we haven't discovered an objective morality, and the fact conceptions of morality vary so greatly lend credence to the idea of moral relativism or moral nihilism.
Can you explain what this means, please? Is there a set of markers that can split all humans into clearly defined races?
I wanted to avoid invoking this, I'm sorry if I have
rather, I was saying that biology invalidates social constructs by pointing out that a social construct perception of race can be factually wrong
OP is an insincere ideologue who literally won't read a thing that doesn't agree with him. If you guys value your time you better stop replying.
Yeah, that's not race, that's just putative racial groups sharing the same phenotype as distinct from others as a result of divergent evolution!
Oh wait, that is race.
You've yet to provide me proof of said mooted policies.
Fair point but basically boils down as you going "n-no" at concrete policymaking.
Not him, I'm the one arguing the middle ground position. What I think he's trying to say is that race can be BOTH biological and socially constructed, and there is no strict relationship between any particular phylogeny and any particular social construction within any particular culture.
Consider for example superstitions about physical objects. Some group of people believe a weeping statue of the Virgin Mary, or any other example, to have certain healing or special properties which are socially constructed as relating to some particular physical features of the object. Yet even though this is a stable relationship in the construction, this does not actually mean the constructed properties then inhere in the object itself.
No, you just have a persecution complex and think that what you're saying is high above what I have said. Like so, you dish out adhoms and fail again to address anything I've said. You say I'm talking over you and being arrogant, but that is exactly what you are doing. You pretend that calling you racist isn't accurate when your argument must necessarily rest on either pandering or excluding a race for socialism to work. Your argument also rests on a fallacy of relevance, which time and time again I've said that this line is blurry enough for you to be the one who has to constantly assert their moral and intellectual authority. You continue to say I do not address your arguments, but what about mine? You do not hold yourself to the same standard of honesty. Remember when I said that talking about race clearly hasn't helped? Well look at you? How has it helped you? how has it helpped Holla Forums? How can Holla Forums benefit from joining in identity politics? The point is that it won't. You only make an assumption that because people will talk about it they are actually willing to change their views. But again, I ask you, have you been helpped by talking about race?
Your obtuseness at why someone on Holla Forums would be so adamant about rejecting identity politics when we are constantly bombarded with Holla Forums racial consciousness threads with the same tired arguments, or are excluded from our own environments because of the socjussquad, is really disgusting.
I don't expect telling people they're wrong to actually change any minds. Case in point, you.
Dude, I'm not arguing for identity politics, certainly not in the West, where multiculturalism is mainstreamed. I'm saying OTHER CULTURES, in the 7 billion other people on this earth, in 200 something countries, have in built identity politics, that you can't just argue away, and this is a problem for a real tangible international socialist movement that exists outside of an imageboard and some FBI honeypot idpolled subreddits. I'm not arguing for exclusion, pandering, or anything like that lol. Your argument is almost purely rhetoric.
But multiculturalism is identity politics. It is maintained through the aforementioned tolerance programs. In fact, this may be what is also strengthening the identity politics on the other side (see: Dugin and Eurasianism to reject liberal values and so on).
Well, you do seem to like the pandering that goes on in the West. But whatever. I was a bit too hasty in judgment for this whole thing, being mad at work, all the constant idpol threads recently. It's all shit.
No fuck the pandering. I think neoliberal identity politics is cancer, anti-left and dangerously proto-fascistic in any form ("progressive" or otherwise) if pushed in a hard crisis. Just look at how the so called hard left of the neoliberals has openly been demanding repressive reforms, the entire apparatus of which is now being handed over to a Republican dictatorship in the US. I'm interested in what the fucking actual plan is, people say the vaguest shit relating to an ethos but rarely anything close to substantive. Which concerns me a lot because the real far right are preparing and organizing.
I understand why it's frustrating and I see why you'd think I was crypto-racialist. I'm a minority of a minority opinion I guess.
*By dictatorship I just meant control of most of branches of government not literally.
You're absolutely right. The situation is dire and people (read: me) are all so confused that when it looks like there's a silverlining in it all it just becomes a net to alienate others with, attacking even people that one would otherwise be in agreement with. I would again suggest that we find a comprehensive critique of identity politics, one that doesn't look like it's trying to destroy an identity like one gets so often accused of, one that would just say that their identity is irrelevant they can do with it whatever because we don't want to dictate their identity. But, like you say, this is only a vague sketch, and we're still yet approaching very dangerous times.