Your description of war is rather unimaginative and unnecessarily restrictive. As an example, US independence was neither about subjugation nor conquering territory.

Violence is the continuation of politics by different means. It's a matter of dispute resolution and therefore looting and rioting can be a means, and should be if the social institutions are incapable of change when they perpetuate injustices.

Popular uprisings have had effect not because they neatly toed the line government set out for them but precisely because of the threat that if their demands were not met, then...

:up:

:clap:

Very well said.

The police stuff, and social policy to address that mobility issue are domestic, and are what the momentum of this movement is towards in the US I think. By the looks of it the international movement is focused on domestic policies within the effected nations. I don't think it would be or should be repurposed towards addressing international systemic racism/colonialism, I simply hope that the movement gathers enough momentum and scope to "Yes, and" the international stuff; using that domestic levers can pull on international trade policies too.

If those in power regarding the rules for global markets(the head of states, and/or the actual authors of legislation regarding trade policy) are operating under a racist belief system, or continuing to implement an inherited racist based system, then we would certainly have a world-wide systemic form of racism.

However, and this is my basic point here, due to the nature of sovereign nations, it is not in my purview to tell them what to do. — creativesoul

I think this is wrong on both claims.

Firstly it doesn't require a racist belief system to generate systemic racism. It only requires systems which do not account for, nor rectify, previous racially motivated policies. Even then race can be a convenient tool for suppressing working class power structures so I don't agree that racist beliefs are necessary at any stage, certainly not now.

Secondly, I disagree that it is not within your purview to influence sovereign nations. We influence sovereign nations all the time. Our tourism, our trade, our development aid, our charitable interventions, our membership of global organisations (UN, World Bank, IMF). The idea that sovereign governments are the ones in charge of how their countries develop is limited even with HDEs, its bordering ridiculous with LDEs.

There will still be fewer and fewer good quality American jobs available to those from unfortunate backgrounds/circumstances so long as these trade policies are not addressed — creativesoul

Again, I don't think this is true. Capitalist economic structures rely on an underemployed underclass to keep wages low. They then need to police this underclass, for whom criminality is pretty much the only option. Exploitation of cheap workers abroad, doesn't somehow 'rob' locals of work that they would otherwise have had because to give them that work would be to reduce wage pressure. Its possible to exploit lower paid workers abroad, so systems are set up to do so. It doesn't automatically follow that taking that possibility away will create better systems in the home country.

Being born black in this country, is one of those aforementioned unfortunate circumstances, and will continue to be as long as the racist beliefs are allowed to remain influential in American government. — creativesoul

I disagree. I think the disadvantages of being born black in America are far more influenced by historical effects which place blacks disproportionately in the lower classes. Making it an issue of racist beliefs just offers a convenient way to maintain neo-liberal ideas of ignoring class struggle by deflecting the issue. As if re-education of some erroneous belief was all that was needed. It will achieve as much as changing the curtains in the oval office. If it's not blacks being disproportionately effected, it'll be women, or red-heads, or goodness knows what - because the main problem has not been addressed, which is that some underpaid underclass are a necessary component of the system. We don't solve the problem by ensuring that this underprivileged class is made up equally of blacks and whites. We solve it by removing the need for such an underclass at all.

I don't agree that racist beliefs are necessary at any stage, certainly not now. — Isaac

How do you account for the cognitive dissonance that happens as a consequence of living within a racist system? If you think people are detached from the system they exist within, that is going against evidence in psychology. (washington post, wiki)

I'm not sure if I understand the question, but if you're asking what I think you're asking, then that would be a question about whether there exist racist belief, not whether they are necessary to explain the existence of systemic racism.

I'm not sure if I understand the question, but if you're asking what I think you're asking, then that would be a question about whether there exist racist belief, not whether they are necessary to explain the existence of systemic racism. — Isaac

How does racism begin? A) With an individual's personal fears or B) with a group/family/division of society that creates a narrative of fear as a couping mechanism or mechanism of having power and control over others?

How does racism still exist? A) Because individuals keep racist beliefs even with evidence to the contrary and children of a new generation form new racist beliefs individually without any influence or B) The created racist narrative is put into a core part of society so fundamental that it becomes part of reality for children of a new generation.

If you answer A on both, that means you believe that our ideas and worldviews form individually and outside of influence from the system and society we are in. If you answer B you believe what has roots in psychological research; that we are formed by society, especially the beliefs we have and that if a core part of society has a racist praxis, even without outspoken racists within them, that system and praxis will through cognitive dissonance form behavior that isn't in conflict with that society's status quo.

It's easier to accept the status quo that doesn't threaten your own worldview and existence. It's harder for those who are content with the status quo to see problems within it than those who are affected negatively by that system. The reason many can't see systemic racism in society is that most of those who position themselves under that opinion isn't negatively affected by the status quo and gain nothing on changing it, maybe even losing something on changing it. So cognitive dissonance kicks in and biases and fallacies take over.

Only freethinkers can at a moment notice rationally be skeptical of their own status quo the moment some other perspective is presented. Most common people fall into cognitive dissonance every time they are forced to think about the status quo in a new perspective and systemic racism is a new perspective for anyone who isn't affected negatively by it. Either they deny it or defend it and in defending it they slowly form into being a racist, whether they understand it or not themselves.

I'm not sure how any of what you've just said relates to the position in your first comment to me, nor answers my question.

I claimed that racist beliefs were not necessary to either cause or sustain systemic racism. Meaning that if you educated people to the extent that they no longer held racist beliefs, there would still be systemic racism.

You seemed to suggest that such a position left some acknowledged psychological feature unexplained. I'm asking what that feature is and how such a principle as the one I outlined above leaves it unexplained.

Your last post basically outlines a common theory of racist belief propagation and perpetuation, but my point was not about the causes of racist belief, it was about the causes of systemic racism, so I'm not sure how you're relating the two issues.

I claimed that racist beliefs were not necessary to either cause or sustain systemic racism. — Isaac

It starts with a racist belief, systemic racism is the cause of that belief being put into the status quo of society. Then when the common status quo narrative of racism is deleted from society as a norm, systemic racism still exists and program people into racist beliefs.

You seemed to suggest that such a position left some acknowledged psychological feature unexplained. I'm asking what that feature is and how such a principle as the one I outlined above leaves it unexplained. — Isaac

I pointed out how systemic racism form from a starting personal belief, then the system itself form new personal beliefs. That it's impossible to separate systemic racism with individual racist beliefs, they inform and sustain each other. While some people act racist through systemic racism without holding such beliefs, many people conform to individual racism through the cognitive dissonance that happens when living within that systemic racism.

Your last post basically outlines a common theory of racist belief propagation and perpetuation, but my point was not about the causes of racist belief, it was about the causes of systemic racism, so I'm not sure how you're relating the two issues. — Isaac

As they are inseparable, you cannot have one without the other. If one person is a racist and that racist belief doesn't spread, no systemic racism will continue, but if you look at history, racism has been a widely accepted norm for hundreds if not thousands of years among groups of people and it is without any logical doubt the foundation for a systemic racism that is so incorporated into society that it's as normal as breathing or eating.

Point being is that you cannot have a large group of individual racists without there forming a systemic racist praxis. And when those racists aren't there, the system of society and status quo they formed will be passed on and form new individuals who learn "how things are" through that system. The more fuzed with this system these people are, the easier it is for them to defend the system because of that cognitive dissonance they form when questioned.

I don't think it would be or should be repurposed towards addressing international systemic racism/colonialism, I simply hope that the movement gathers enough momentum and scope to "Yes, and" the international stuff — fdrake

But surely hope isn't enough in the face of almost complete failure to progress at anything like the speed we'd like. I don't think it's sufficient just to hope. To me, the risk of one detracting from (or worse, even contradicting) the other is too great, given the stakes. I think we'd be remiss not to explore those possibilities. But maybe you consider them sufficiently explored and satisfactorily put to bed already. Certainly I feel like I'm repeating myself a bit, so maybe there's not much more fruit to be had from this branch.

I think we'd be remiss not to explore those possibilities. But maybe you consider them sufficiently explored and satisfactorily put to bed already. Certainly I feel like I'm repeating myself a bit, so maybe there's not much more fruit to be had from this branch. — Isaac

I'm not saying it is valueless to consider; I just think it's not the right time or movement to easily pivot into non-domestic issues. The focus seems to me clearly on domestic issues of systemic racism; the current lack of emphasis on the post-colonial and international trade aspects of systemic racism doesn't undermine the real chances of domestic gains.

It starts with a racist belief, systemic racism is the cause of that belief being put into the status quo of society. — Christoffer

What makes you think a racist belief is necessary to start it?

Then when the common status quo narrative of racism is deleted from society as a norm, systemic racism still exists and program people into racist beliefs. — Christoffer

Right. Which would support my claim. Still not seeing the psychological effect you think I'm missing. Is there any chance you could just name it, for clarity?

I pointed out how systemic racism form from a starting personal belief, then the system itself form new personal beliefs. That it's impossible to separate systemic racism with individual racist beliefs, they inform and sustain each other. — Christoffer

Yes, I got that. I'm moving on to the next bit of the discussion where I ask you why you believe that, you hinted at some well known psychological principle I'm missing, but your links were to cognitive dissonance. I don't see how the existence of cognitive dissonance means that racist beliefs must have initiated systemic racism.

As they are inseparable, you cannot have one without the other. — Christoffer

I don'tsee what that's got to do with causation. Every time it rains the grass gets wet, you can't have rain without the grass getting wet, and you can't (ordinarily) have wet grass without it having just rained. This doesn't in any sense mean that wet grass causes rain. The fact that you can't have one without the other doesn't, on its own, imply mutual causality.

Violence is the continuation of politics by different means. It's a matter of dispute resolution and therefore looting and rioting can be a means, and should be if the social institutions are incapable of change when they perpetuate injustices.

Interesting how if a group of white people went out and destroyed a black owned business everyone would be upset, but if the same action were done because these white people were outraged over police brutality it's just them expressing their virtue and they the group should be praised.

I see. Did you read the articles StreetlightX posted earlier by any chance? I think they detail the issue better than I have, but it's primarily about distraction, so I guess I just disagree that lack of emphasis on the post-colonial international aspects doesn't undermine the real chances of domestic gains. I think a failure to address issues in a united and consistent manner does impact on success.

Maybe it's a different approach to localisation, but imagine if, in the middle of the BLM movement, the newspapers were full of a campaign to help give social support to the elderly, and stopped reporting on the protests. A perfectly worthy campaign, but would a part of you not feel like the wind had been taken out of the sails a bit? Would no small part of you question the paper's motives, no matter how worthy the alternate cause?

That's basically how I feel about single issue protests which don't express sufficient solidarity with the wider structural problems of they are one part.

But again, I'm open to the possibility that you think such solidarity has been adequately expressed, and maybe our difference is not one of principle but one of judgement?

Did you read the articles StreetlightX posted earlier by any chance? — Isaac

By chance, I was watching an interview with Adolph Reed the other day, who wrote one of the articles I linked and by George he's a terrible speaker. Rambly and really unhelpful at making explicit what he's talking about.

Nice straw man.

But don't you support the riots against police brutality? It's just Americans doing their civic duty.

We Brits thought of it first.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/Medal%2C_order_%28AM_2018.63.1-2%29.jpg

Look carefully at the image of this still current Honour awarded to UK diplomats and political bigwigs. Yup. White angel with foot on head and neck of lucky lucky black person. And that's diplomacy justice and all good things we all can be proud of. Americans are so unoriginal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_St_Michael_and_St_George

What makes you think a racist belief is necessary to start it? — Isaac

You mean to say that a belief that invents a categorization of different people and the devaluation of people with dark skin isn't a racist belief? That is how racism in the west was formed and later put into social norm praxis and systems.

Right. Which would support my claim. Still not seeing the psychological effect you think I'm missing. Is there any chance you could just name it, for clarity? — Isaac

Cognitive dissonance. Do you think you can be raised within a system of norms without becoming a product of those norms? What happens when those norms are questioned with evidence? Would you throw everything you learned out the window and conform to the new norm based on evidence? Very few do that, because of the psychological effect known as cognitive dissonance.

I don't see how the existence of cognitive dissonance means that racist beliefs must have initiated systemic racism. — Isaac

I think you misunderstand what I wrote, maybe it was unclarity on my point. But the principle is that cognitive dissonance is what keeps people being and becoming racists within systemic racism that already exists. First, systemic racism forms from a racist belief that gets built into society, then if the public banish racist norms, but the system it built keeps going, people will A) commit racist acts because of that system without being racists and B) Become racists because of the system through cognitive dissonance.

Example: A white kid grows up in a neighborhood where black people have been state segregated 50 years ago and because of that, the socioeconomics have never recovered to a point where the status quo is equal. The system cogs of society keep the status quo going and black people still live in their own neighborhood with less ability to rise above a poverty line and become part of the white community geographical areas and social status. Crime rates are higher within this area and the parents of the white kid teach that kid to avoid that area, avoid black people. That kid grows up and is forming further norms based on how people relate to the systemic racism at play at the roots of social norms. The white kid learns to fear the black community and forms a world view based on those fears.

If this kid, as a grown person, learns that all of these norms are not true, that there are socioeconomic reasons for black people's situation. That there are complex issues that lead to how people behave and interact with each other etc. This person will either dismantle their world view and learn to see past the norms learned when growing up. Or this person will form a cognitive dissonance so that when being confronted with this new perspective, will defend the status quo since it's the only world that person ever lived in.

If they defend their position, they are becoming individual racists outside of the systematic racism at play. They will defend the status quo of that systemic racism and form defensive ideas to why. The further they defend, the stronger their beliefs get. If it continues growing, they might even form white supremacy ideas and believe in things like white genocide, that the critics of the system want to erase white people through mixing the population. Such a conspiracy theory is not far fetched to link to how that kid learned about segregation being normal as a kid. "Don't go into their neighborhood" "don't mix with them".

That's how someone goes from not being a racist, to being a racist through systemic racism in society.

This doesn't in any sense mean that wet grass causes rain. — Isaac

That is a false analogy. Racist beliefs of an individual can influence a group. That group can form rules and laws based on those racist beliefs and laws and rules gorm norms within the larger group. People growing up with those norms will live by them as the natural order, so even if the rules and laws disappear, the norms continue both in direct consequences for the group negatively affected by the racist laws and in worldviews formed out those consequences.

You use an analogy that is false because the relations between rain and grass is not the same as the relation between the individual and society.

Individuals forms society and society form individuals. If you agree to that, you should consider what I wrote. The grass analogy is like saying, Individuals forms society but society doesn't form individuals, which is false by facts of psychological research.

(But... wet grass causes rain, since the water vaporize into clouds that rain down so... even as a false analogy it fails to be false, sorry)

Why don't you try and quote me where I said that? You seem to be gunning for a verbal fight or something. I'm not interested.

Also, what's going on in the USA now doesn't qualify as riots. 1992 and 1967 had riots. These are disturbances.

Ok if you don't support the "disturbances" that's fine. Your quote did imply it though.

As to whether I'm gunning for a fight... am I just not allowed to engage people who I disagree with? Should I only respond to you to express agreement? I'm sure we'd have great discussions just going back and forth telling each other that we agree with each other.

Rambly and really unhelpful at making explicit what he's talking about. — StreetlightX

I do my best... Oh... You were talking about Reed.

I think your idea of engaging might be a bit off. I'd be happy to argue and discuss ideas here or to clarify posts I've made. I don't have a lot of patience for loaded questions or straw men. That said; I have a bit of time to expound a little.

I think the disturbances and the focus on them are a distraction. I think calling people, who are by far mostly peaceful protesters, "rioters", is harmful to any possible progress because to many it would invalidate the grievances of the protesters (because, unfortunately, poisoning the well is totally effective as a rhetorical device and affecting public opinion, even if it's a fallacy).

So in that sense I really don't care about the disturbances despite the personal loss it has caused for some people. I'll call that collateral damage and insist that it doesn't affect the righteousness of the cause being pursued, much as, when a bomb is dropped on a strategic bridge, we don't care about the loss of life of non-combatants.

Peaceful protests have led to barely any progress since 1967, with a decidedly clear political shift towards and outright flirting by the Republican political establishment with racism in recent years I think the sense for many is that anti-racism has actually lost ground.

Now we again have a mass movement demanding change to accomplish equality. It focuses on various sub-sets of inequality, such as police brutality and criminal justice, but also with respect to how cities and states spend their money and with respect to economic inequality that disproportionality affects black people. If things don't materially change so that US society becomes more just because the political institutions are either a) incapable or b) unwilling to affect change, then riots definitely become an option in my book and ethically defensible. Just more collateral damage.

Gosh you expend an awful lot of text explaining an argument that I neither misunderstood, nor contradicted. We can just leave out the entire chunk where you talk about how systemic racism results in racist beliefs because at this stage no one is denying that, so there's no need to waste your time trying to explain it. The issue is whether racist beliefs in turn are a necessary cause of systemic racism.

If, at one point in a culture, all people over six foot were given a million pounds. A hundred years later, there would be a systemic favouring of people over six foot. Their descendents would have had a better chance in life, they would more likely hold positions of power and probably gather geographically. The current culture might (perhaps because all children are brought up elsewhere) be completely ambivalent about height, it wouldn't mean that short people aren't still the victims of systemic heightism.

This is really important to stress because the idea that systemic racism is caused by racist attitudes turns what is a massive structural problem into trivial issue about education. As if we could solve the problem in a stroke by giving white kids more books with black kids in. It trivialises the effects of a system which mandates an underprivileged underclass.

So...

You mean to say that a belief that invents a categorization of different people and the devaluation of people with dark skin isn't a racist belief? — Christoffer

Yes, I mean to say exactly that. It isn't a belief at all. Inventing a categorization of different people and the devaluation of people with dark skin is a strategy, not a belief. One could invent such a system for any purpose at all, racism needn't be it.

I think calling people, who are by far mostly peaceful protesters, "rioters", is harmful to any possible progress because to many it would invalidate the grievances of the protesters (because, unfortunately, poisoning the well is totally effective as a rhetorical device and affecting public opinion, even if it's a fallacy).

We need to make a sharp distinction between protesters and rioters. I have no problem with protesters. I am not calling peaceful protesters rioters, I am calling those who destroy businesses and property and assault business owners in the name of this cause "rioters."

I disagree that condemning the rioters invalidates the grievances of the protesters. I hope you agree that just because someone supports X, doesn't mean that they are condoned to achieve X at virtually any cost.

I'll call that collateral damage and insist that it doesn't affect the righteousness of the cause being pursued, much as, when a bomb is dropped on a strategic bridge, we don't care about the loss of life of non-combatants.

I can tell you that as someone in the Air Force, we do care about collateral damage. Even if we were targeting bin laden himself (I know he's dead) we don't have a blank cheque to, say, destroy a city in order to kill him. There's a serious discussion to be had over how much collateral damage is permissible, but no one is saying that everything is acceptable in the name of achieving an objective or that the loss of life from collateral damage doesn't matter.

In any case in this scenario we're talking about the actions of individuals, not potentially imprecise bombs or possibly faulty intel being dropped on an enemy. Collateral damage implies a degree of inevitability, but we need to be seriously careful about this whether we're talking about an actual war or social change. Reasonable people agree with fighting Hitler, but disagree with some of the bombing runs - say, Dresden. Be careful in the name of fighting a monster that you don't become one yourself. This is always one of the dangers of war.

If things don't materially change so that US society becomes more just because the political institutions are either a) incapable or b) unwilling to affect change, then riots definitely become an option in my book and ethically defensible. Just more collateral damage.

I would strongly advise using other means to achieve your goals. I think rioting and destroying local private businesses is almost never excusable - even if the system is unchangeably rotten to the core. I wouldn't have excused Jews rioting in Nazi Germany and destroying German businesses even after the Nuremberg laws were passed. It just wouldn't have been the proper response on several fronts, and I say this as someone with family killed in the Holocaust. If we're talking about targeting government officials that's a different story.

Liverpool was at the centre of the slave trade, and the University has not been slow in showing its hypocrisy in on one side claiming to support BLM, and on the other attempting to shut down any critical debate. John Moores, to save your google finger made his stash running football pools, a barely legal gambling set up. Followed by a mail order business selling third rate products to the poor on credit.

https://leejasper.blogspot.com/2020/06/john-moores-university-lack-of-action.html?spref=tw&fbclid=IwAR0go05BCJL_FxzI-FhCusXEGLJfmlaRlzliONqcdHcoVAwOhSbFNziqsGg

It's a bit off topic posting my local shit here, but we Brits really want to show our solidarity with all you American racists at this difficult time.

We need to make a sharp distinction between protesters and rioters. I have no problem with protesters. I am not calling peaceful protesters rioters, I am calling those who destroy businesses and property and assault business owners in the name of this cause "rioters."

I disagree that condemning the rioters invalidates the grievances of the protesters. I hope you agree that just because someone supports X, doesn't mean that they are condoned to achieve X at virtually any cost. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't have a lot of time so I'll just have to respond to the first part I just quoted. I have several issues with it. First, I think the effort itself is a distraction. Is it really important to know who lit up what building or is it important to understand the social and civil unrest leading up to these sorts of disturbances? I'm in favour of the latter.

Second, I'm not convinced a hard distinction can be made between protesters and rioters, which makes the effort futile - leading to endless discussions.

Third, what if all protesters were also rioters? Do we treat them as protesters or rioters? And then I get back to what got people to protest and riot in the first place and, you, being born and raised in the USA, probably see that as a purely individual choice and individual responsibility... but I don't. Protests and riots are symptoms, say, emergent properties of the system.

Much like systemic racism in policing isn't the result of devious, amoral, evil cops going out there to shoot black people with intent. Nevertheless, cops do shoot them in statistically unlikely high numbers. And a lot of that isn't something we can just blame solely on the cop doing the shooting.

In that sense both the cop and the rioter are victims of circumstances. So where you see the crime of arson, I see a crime before that, causing that arson but magnitudes worse.

Wow, is that how the assignment of onus works? Based on which argument you personally find initially most plausible. You must be kept very busy indeed. Is there a phone number people have to ring to find out, or do you have a web service? — Isaac

If you want to propose something extreme such as that the destruction of resources will likely produce a better future for humanity than refraining from such destruction, then of course the onus would be on you to make a convincing argument for that.

None of the rest of what you say constitutes any argument to support the notion that destruction of resources is likely to lead to better outcomes. It just looks like a "I've read more than you have, so there". Give an argument in your own words for a plausible mechanism for how violence or destruction of resources could lead to positive social change, and I'll give it due consideration and critique.

merely to point out that it's not as obviously wrong as you make out. — Isaac

Typical of you to put words in my mouth! I haven't said it is obviously wrong; I am saying that I can't imagine any mechanism by which it could be right. Help me out and outline one, even if it is merely hypothetical (which of course it would be anyway) if you can.

So, it's obvious how peaceful protest and rational discussion and agreement (however difficult it might be to achieve them) could work, just outline some ways in which you think violence, looting and destructive behavior might help.

Your description of war is rather unimaginative and unnecessarily restrictive. As an example, US independence was neither about subjugation nor conquering territory. — Benkei

The American war of independence was fought to gain freedom from British rule and establish
American sovereignity, so of course it was about the control and ownership of territory.

Violence is the continuation of politics by different means. It's a matter of dispute resolution and therefore looting and rioting can be a means, and should be if the social institutions are incapable of change when they perpetuate injustices. — Benkei

Sure, violence in the form of war or civil war will inevitably result if there is a relatively equal balance of power and no possibility of peaceful resolution. Entrenched and institutionalized attitudes in a society are not amenable to change by violence; you have to change the majority mind, and the majority mind does not like what it sees as mindless destruction of resources, so such a "stategy" is vanishingly unlikely to work.

Popular uprisings have had effect not because they neatly toed the line government set out for them but precisely because of the threat that if their demands were not met, then... — Benkei

You would need an overwhelming majority of support and/ or the support of the military itself for an uprising to bring about the desired changes. The BLM movement I would say certainly does have majority support around the world, but the burning and looting I would say certainly does not, and so all it does is detract from the message.