I think it's a problem in all the Nordic countries. — ssu

Live in Norway, in the city I live in I've heard reports of racist hostility or violence against:

Two Somali men, one Nigerian man, at least three Eritreans, two Ethiopian men, one Sudanese woman, two Congolese men, two Kurdish men, an Iraqi man and an Iranian man.

Since a couple of years ago, I've seen quite a few people wearing far right signifiers in bars - including a young man with a fucking cobweb on his eye. More of them recently.

The impression I get is that they came out of the woodwork after the Syrian civil war, the "threat of Islamisation" seems to be their animating bugbear at the minute - so I imagine it's continuous with anti-Middle-Eastern racist populism across Europe.

Let's start with an easy example. After WWII, black soldiers were systematically denied education & housing benefits, even tho the law itself was ostensibly neutral. The ability to purchase a house and/or get a college degree gave white soldiers significant financial & social advantages that they passed onto their children.

Most people would consider this to be an example of systemic racism. Do you agree or disagree? — EricH

Right, so some govt. showing preferential treatment based on one's skin color would entail systemic racism. But then isnt that what affirmative action is - systemic racism against non-blacks? If the results of systemic racism accrue over time, how long do we need to implement affirmative action before the balance is tipped? It seems to me that BLM will just keep asking for more, claiming that systemic racism still exists indefinitely, using cherry-picked stats. Will 13% of the population be fine with 13% of the wealth? Demanding more would be demanding more than your fair share.

If the results of systemic racism accrue over time, how long do we need to implement affirmative action before the balance is tipped? — Harry Hindu

For starter I take it that you would agree that 300 years of slavery and over 100 years of legally enforced segregation was not a good thing.

It seems to me that BLM will just keep asking for more, claiming that systemic racism still exists indefinitely, using cherry-picked stats. — Harry Hindu

If you're worried about future cherry picking, then OK. But there's no cherry picking currently going on.

All other things being equal - our USA society places a higher value on the life of a white person than that of a black person.

And it is a plain fact that no black person (other than small children) can ever be 100% sure that - without any warning - they could be subject to violent harm or death simply due to the color of their skin.

If you disagree with me then do your own random poll of, say, 10 black people and get back to me.

Will 13% of the population be fine with 13% of the wealth? Demanding more would be demanding more than your fair share. — Harry Hindu

Get back to me when black people actually have 13% of the wealth.

It seems to me that BLM will just keep asking for more, claiming that systemic racism still exists indefinitely, using cherry-picked stats. — Harry Hindu

Harry Hindu, which political movement has ever ceased it's activity once it's clearest goals have been achieved and the most obvious grievances and injustices have been corrected?

Which leader of a political movement has said to the members: "We did it. Thanks for everything, but now we close shop, so go find some other cause or something else to do."

That has never happened.

The more successful any political movement has been in the past, the more silly will the "next generation" and following generation after that be.

Get back to me [Hindu Harry] when black people actually have 13% of the wealth. — EricH

I.e. hold 13% of the senior agenda-setting, investment & employment decision-making positions in American governments & businesses.

... isnt that what affirmative action is - systemic racism against non-blacks? — Harry Hindu

Regurgitating more pathetic white grievence again ... completely in denial of pro-white male affirmative reaction since 1619. :shade:

In America contrary to "racist stereotypes", affirmative action (like welfare programs), has always mostly benefitted white women instead of nonwhite minorities. — 180 Proof

Live in Norway, in the city I live in I've heard reports of racist hostility or violence against:

Two Somali men, one Nigerian man, at least three Eritreans, two Ethiopian men, one Sudanese woman, two Congolese men, two Kurdish men, an Iraqi man and an Iranian man.

Since a couple of years ago, I've seen quite a few people wearing far right signifiers in bars - including a young man with a fucking cobweb on his eye. More of them recently.

The impression I get is that they came out of the woodwork after the Syrian civil war, the "threat of Islamisation" seems to be their animating bugbear at the minute - so I imagine it's continuous with anti-Middle-Eastern racist populism across Europe. — fdrake

You aint from Sweden.

No, I'm from Scotland. Why did you bring that up?

Ahah. I hadn't picked up on that because being approached by the police for riding your bike in the wrong place is a common occurrence in the Netherlands. Happened to me plenty of times.

For starter I take it that you would agree that 300 years of slavery and over 100 years of legally enforced segregation was not a good thing. — EricH

This didn't answer my question.

If you're worried about future cherry picking, then OK. But there's no cherry picking currently going on. — EricH

Sure there is.

All other things being equal - our USA society places a higher value on the life of a white person than that of a black person. — EricH

Wrong. There are many of blacks that make more than many whites combined. If Breeona Taylor was white, we wouldn't have heard about her being murdered by police. If the reports that police shot blindly in her house were correct, then they never knew what color her skin was before shooting, so to say that it was because she was black is cherry-picking - as if every instance where a black person is shot by police must be because of racism.

And it is a plain fact that no black person (other than small children) can ever be 100% sure that - without any warning - they could be subject to violent harm or death simply due to the color of their skin. — EricH

This mentality is part of the problem. Telling young black kids this makes them resist police that are simply trying to make sure that they are not being threatened. It makes them think that every police officer is racist, when that simply isn't the case.

You and others like you simply can't get it through your little heads that you are doing the exact same thing that you are complaining about - acting on preconceived notions based on the color of one's skin, or what uniform someone wears. If it is wrong to assume that blacks are criminals based on stats, then it is wrong to assume cops are racist bigots based on some stats. The hypocrisy is getting old.

Get back to me when black people actually have 13% of the wealth. — EricH

Why would I have to get back to you? This is a "yes" or "no" answer. The fact that I would have to wait indicates that you still won't be satisfied with equal treatment. This is a clear indicator that you are more interested in special treatment.

Harry Hindu, which political movement has ever ceased it's activity once it's clearest goals have been achieved and the most obvious grievances and injustices have been corrected? — ssu

No, that's why Biden is still making promises to address those same grievances that existed 50 years ago. Government accumulates more power by creating or promoting problems and offers bigger govt. as the solution.

But then that is the problem - that political parties adopt these movements and then end up skewing the grass-roots movement to something more sinister. This is what happened with the movement for getting George Floyd the justice he deserves.

I.e. hold 13% of the senior agenda-setting, investment & employment decision-making positions in American governments & businesses. — 180 Proof

Well, blacks make up 13% of the House of Representatives - happy? Something tells me that you won't be.

Regurgitating more pathetic white grievence again ... completely in denial of pro-white male affirmative reaction since 1619. — 180 Proof

Oh, so then it's regurgitating more pathetic black grievance again? I mean if it was racist for whites to do, then why is it not racist for blacks to do it? It's like you're giving a pass for the bad behavior of blacks - as if it's wrong only if a white person does it.

What makes someone representative of you simply because they have the same skin color as you? Do you represent all blacks? There are many blacks that you say that you don't. If not, then how can you even say that some representative is representing all blacks - as if a white person couldn't represent a black person and vice versa. It's not the color of your skin that makes you representative of some group. It's the thoughts in your head and your goals that you share.

This mentality is part of the problem. Telling young black kids this makes them resist police that are simply trying to make sure that they are not being threatened. It makes them think that every police officer is racist, when that simply isn't the case. — Harry Hindu

Nice. Victim blaming. If only women didn't wear skirts. If only black people weren't distrustful of the police.

EDIT: On the other hand, I suppose it's progress for you to admit there is a problem here.

Everyone is prejudiced (re: the human condition); however, only Whites (& their Nonwhite 'racial apologists') - overwhelmingly in control of governments and businesses which adversely affect the liberty, lives & livelihoods of Communities of Color for the historically well-documented, predominant, benefit of the liberty, lives & livelihoods of White Communities - can be "racist" in an America wherein Communities of Color do not control predominant shares of any governments or business that adversely affect or threaten White Communities.

A grievance about well-documented and corroborated racist violence and discrimination by Whites against People of Color cannot itself be "racist" any more than a complaint of ... sexist violence and discrimination by Men against Women can itself be "sexist".

I get it, Hindu, you're (incorrigibly) ignorant and (apologetically) racist, a smug tRumpy troll. Drink bleach much? :victory: :mask:

It makes them think that every police officer is racist, when that simply isn't the case. — Harry Hindu

What year do you think the police stopped being racist? (if you think they stopped being racist. If don't think they were ever racist how does that fit with what is generally accepted as the behavior of the police in the past?) the 50s?, the 70s?

Nice. Victim blaming. If only women didn't wear skirts. If only black people weren't distrustful of the police.

EDIT: On the other hand, I suppose it's progress for you to admit there is a problem here. — Benkei

If only blacks and non-blacks weren't distrustful of blacks who commit more than their fair share of crimes, particularly hate crimes.

When a black woman calls the police because her ex black lover (Jacob Blake) with a criminal record of sexual assault is trespassing on her property and steals her car keys, then she's racist and sexist for calling the those racist cops on a black man, right Benkei? When he then ignores the police and proceeds to reach into his vehicle, then its the cops fault for shooting him in the back, right Benkei?

Everyone is prejudiced (re: the human condition); however, only Whites (& their Nonwhite 'racial apologists') - overwhelmingly in control of governments and businesses — 180 Proof

What else would you expect when a majority of the population is white? What are you advocating for - the minority ruling the majority? You do realize that there are countries run completely by blacks? You do know where to look for those, right, and then the type of corruption that goes on in those countries? Everyone is not only prejudiced to some degree or another, but corrupted by power as well, including blacks.

which adversely affect the liberty, lives & livelihoods of Communities of Color for the historically well-documented, predominant, benefit of the liberty, lives & livelihoods of White Communities - can be "racist" in an America wherein Communities of Color do not control predominant shares of any governments or business that adversely affect or threaten White Communities. — 180 Proof

If only this were true, you wouldn't have whole districts run by black mayors, black police chiefs, black judges, black presidents, etc. If everyone is prejudiced then it doesn't matter who is in power. What matters is that citizens protect themselves from those in power and are corrupted by it, no matter what their color of skin.

And to say that if these domains should be controlled predominantly by non-whites, is to say that you prefer the minority to rule over the majority. You are saying that we should give blacks more than their fair share of representation and power. Thanks for showing your true colors, 180 - communist red.

When a black woman calls the police because her ex black lover (Jacob Blake) with a criminal record of sexual assault is trespassing on her property and steals her car keys, then she's racist and sexist for calling the those racist cops on a black man, right Benkei? When he then ignores the police and proceeds to reach into his vehicle, then its the cops fault for shooting him in the back, right Benkei? — Harry Hindu

Cool strawmen. Once you're capable of articulating an argument I'll get back to you.

There you have it folks: Its okay for blacks to fear cops based on some stats, but not okay for cops to fear blacks based on stats, them ignoring instructions by the cop meant to keep both of them safe, and reaching into their vehicle.

And as a bonus we get a non sequitur. Why are you even on a philosophy forum if you don't even know how to argue a point?

No, that's why Biden is still making promises to address those same grievances that existed 50 years ago. Government accumulates more power by creating or promoting problems and offers bigger govt. as the solution.

But then that is the problem - that political parties adopt these movements and then end up skewing the grass-roots movement to something more sinister. This is what happened with the movement for getting George Floyd the justice he deserves. — Harry Hindu

The first thing for political parties is to control the public political discourse...on the lines they want to. And if polarization suits the political duopoly in the US, guess what you will have?

There you have it folks: Its okay for blacks to fear cops based on some stats, but not okay for cops to fear blacks based on stats, them ignoring instructions by the cop meant to keep both of them safe, and reaching into their vehicle. — Harry Hindu

In some other time and place the issue would be about the excessive use of lethal force by the police, not only an issue about systemic racism by the police. Perhaps with a white male with a warrant for arrest and resisting the arrest in a similar situation, the police officer would have fired far fewer shots in the back (after all, there's no hiding the racial profiling in these cases).

Here's a video I'd like people to watch from three years ago.

It does tell that even in the US there could exist a normal decent political interaction, the ability to engage the other side and the ability to understand that Americans make a nation together even if in a democracy the people naturally disagree on a whole range of issues. In a 2017 Trump rally (I guess), the organizers give the BLM counterprotesters two minutes talk their message and the BLM member that took the stage responded well to the occasion with his response to the Trump crowd.



But of course this above is ancient history. And perhaps even remarking about the above video is annoying, naive and destructive "both-sideism" for some people.

Time to choose which fellow citizens you hate, I guess.

(I will be happy if I'm wrong and the US calms down after the elections.)

Why are you even on a philosophy forum if you don't even know how to argue a point? — Benkei

MAGA troll is as MAGA does. :mask:

I think it's a problem in all the Nordic countries. — ssu

Nah. It's about respecting the cultures, customs, and social norms (including language) of another person's home. Besides. Those are pretty much just frozen prisons anyway. No one should want to migrate there. It would be hazardous and unsafe for any agency to even consider that as a place to do so. Especially if they can't survive the elements on their own without government assistance.

You don't come into Africa from another land trying to convert people to your religion and make them speak your language because you think it's "better" or "right". Oh wait, people have and do. That's where the majority of modern day conflicts that kill millions of Africans stem from. Meanwhile, no one talks about that. Interesting, no?

The Americas are different seeing as others were there first.

What are you, a Hobbit? Because my arguements are flying over your head.

Look who's talking.


I could not agree more. BLM's narrow-minded scope of addressing racism could be expanded to address ALL instances of police brutality and corruption against ALL lives. ALL lives matter doesnt delegitimize racism or black lives, it acknowledges it and adopts it as part of its platform. ALL lives matter is inclusive, while BLM is divisive and segregating. Any opinion other than theirs is racist.

Freedom of speech cuts both ways. Like the guy in the video says, just as you have the right to express your ideas, so do they. While it appears that this Trump crowd has taken the higher ground and provided BLM a platform to make their argument, I wonder if they would have provided the same respect for an atheist?

Yes, although even Trump admitted the point in the Woodward recordings, so at this point it's probably just pure racism driving Harry's weird rants.

I could not agree more. BLM's narrow-minded scope of addressing racism could be expanded to address ALL instances of police brutality and corruption against ALL lives. ALL lives matter doesnt delegitimize racism or black lives, it acknowledges it and adopts it as part of its platform. ALL lives matter is inclusive, while BLM is divisive and segregating. Any opinion other than theirs is racist. — Harry Hindu

It doesn't stop there, not at all, if you look at BLM. In the (official?) website they emphasize:

Our network centers those who have been marginalized within Black liberation movements.

Hence the emphasis on sexual minorities to make the (much needed?) space between "the established" black organizations, which is reinforced following lines:

We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.

We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.

Hence the official BLM isn't, let's say, a great friend of the heterosexual black male believing in traditional values. And this is very notable, because this is, perhaps unintentionally, meant to divide the black community: it's not about systemic racism, it's also dismantling cisgender privilege, where black male himself seems to be the problem. And this is a problem when the whole thing is especially about young black males and their profiling by the police as violent criminals.

This is what makes BLM and the post-modern intersectionality are so splendid for the ruling class: they actively divide the people. When human rights become especially trans rights, that's a very small minority which you can deal, which is great for those in power. The obvious reason is that movements that could unite American people against the two ruling parties are a direct threat to their hold on power. BLM or earlier OWS or the Tea-Party on the other side are not going to challenge anything, but just hopefully get new recruits for the two parties, which especially the Tea-Party movement (earlier those for Ron Paul) got well recruited. And so will happen on the Democratic side too.

Hence the official BLM isn't, let's say, a great friend of the heterosexual black male believing in traditional values. And this is very notable, because this is, perhaps unintentionally, meant to divide the black community: it's not about systemic racism, it's also dismantling cisgender privilege, where black male himself seems to be the problem. And this is a problem when the whole thing is especially about young black males and their profiling by the police as violent criminals. — ssu

Being equals is really divisive...

What are you, a Hobbit? Because my arguements are flying over your head. — Harry Hindu

Ad hominem. That's three fallacies in a row. I'm labelling the nonsense you call arguments and not missing a beat.

Freedom of speech cuts both ways. Like the guy in the video says, just as you have the right to express your ideas, so do they. — Harry Hindu

Of course time and place and opportunism and purpose have nothing to do with it. Do not you think it odd that ALM only makes noise where and when BLM is protesting, the ALM's noise manifestly an effort to drown out and silence BLM concerns? And why do ALMers characteristically often bring their AKs and symbols of hate when they gather? It seems to me that ALM is not in any way a for movement , but rather an against movement. And the concerns of which - BLM concerns - are properly and exactly the concerns of all of us.

I'll go further. Any student of history eventually realizes that black Americans have done disproportionate heavy lifting in America for little or no reward except the whip, the noose, Jim Crow, and an entire spectrum of prejudice. With BLM, they are still doing it. That it is in fact a concern of all accounts for the increasing white faces joining black protests - some getting it; a few always having got it.

Interesting though is that hate really is equal opportunity. Given its run it will rip and tear at itself and eat its own. And that is what ALMers and their like are blind to - denizens of Dante's Inferno come to mind.

Thanks for posting the video. (As it turns out, BLM officially disavows this guy, Hawk Newsome, but I don't know the whole history there.)

What fascinated me is the range of crowd reactions, sometimes a mix of boos and cheers. I wish there had been more crowd footage -- you see just a little nodding and headshaking. When Newsome says, 'When I say I'm African-American, I mean both,' there's a guy who shakes his head for a while. That is not disagreement -- what could he be disagreeing with? It's disbelief. He doesn't believe Newsome believes what he's saying. But clearly some people do find him sincere, and maybe were surprised that he is not what Fox News and talk radio told them he would be. But chances are they would conclude that he was "one of the good ones", and BLM is still a bunch of radical leftists or crypto-jihadists or whatever.

:up:

I have skimmed through this topic and I have not seen any clear example of "systemic racism". Does racism exist? Sure! Is it codified in laws and regulations? Where? In South Africa, I assume, in the apartheid days pro-whte, in the current time pro-black. But where else?

I have skimmed through this topic and I have not seen any clear example of "systemic racism". — Derukugi

"Skim" a cup of sea water from the tide and then guess (conclude?), because it contains no sharks, "there are no sharks in the sea". :roll:

Being equals is really divisive... — Benkei

Actually....yes. It is truly meant to be divisive.

(As it turns out, BLM officially disavows this guy, Hawk Newsome, but I don't know the whole history there.) — Srap Tasmaner

There you see how the post-modernist power play works in reality. So why BLM officially disavows Hawk Newsome? Here's the story:

The Black Lives Matter Global Network distanced itself Thursday from an unaffiliated activist whose comments sparked the ire of President Donald Trump, saying the activist was not speaking on behalf of the movement.

Trump lashed out on Twitter after Hawk Newsome appeared on Fox News this week to discuss the protests sparked by the death of George Floyd.

"Black Lives Matter leader states, 'If U.S. doesn't give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it'. This is Treason, Sedition, Insurrection!" Trump tweeted.

Newsome made the remarks to "The Story" host Martha MacCallum, who asked him about previous statements he'd made on violence seen in some of the Floyd protests. The activist went on to say that his remarks could be taken "figuratively" or "literally."

He also said he does not condone violence or rioting in response to the death of Floyd, but would not condemn those who do it to express anger over police brutality.

In a statement to The Associated Press, BLM Global Network managing director Kailee Scales said Newsome's comments were not an official statement of the network.

"Hawk Newsome has no relation to the Black Lives Matter Global Network," Scales said.

Newsome is a former president of Black Lives Matter Greater New York, which is not an affiliate chapter of the global network. Although there are many groups that use "Black Lives Matter" or "BLM" in their names, only 16 are considered affiliates of the BLM Global Network.

So not only the hopefully positive video is truly past history, it wasn't even the "official" BLM affiliate speaking. And yes, the above story tells also how close BLM is to the corporate World, so arguments similar to being heard here in PF by some are simply not tolerated. Why? Because as I said, the BLM is very close to the ruling class, as it's message doesn't pose any threat:

The Black Lives Matter movement has sparked an outpouring of more than $1 billion in corporate giving — and launched a wild scramble for the cash among a dozen BLM groups scattered across the country.

Some are for-profit, some are nonprofit but all are positioned to claim big bucks in corporate pledges from companies such as Bank of America, Walmart and Facebook.

Four are already in trouble with the IRS, according to public records.

They show that BLM charities in New York, Vermont, Florida and South Carolina have had their nonprofit status revoked by the IRS for failing to file annual returns.

There’s also confusion among the groups, along with a lack of transparency, which is alarming watchdogs.