Nobody answered my question. This is like saying "not all men are sexist." yes, we get it, there are many female philosophers, but "many" in relation to what? There's literally 4 or so popular female philosophers in history while theres I-LOST-COUNT many male. — EcceHomo

You asked, "why aren't there many female thinkers today?"

I supplied you with a list.

but "many" in relation to what? There's literally 4 or so popular female philosophers in history while theres I-LOST-COUNT many male. — EcceHomo

Again, I supplied you with a list.

I mean "why aren't there many black inventors?" In actuality there is quite a few, now in terms of notoriety, perhaps their fame is overshadowed by the fact that systemic racism exists. Likewise, female philosophers are overshadowed in a discipline that heavily favored the male mind. Perhaps sexism, and racism are the culprits in why we are unaware of the minority giants of the past and of our time.

Anaxagoras suggested, I would have been better off not talking about the alt-right to begin with. — Judaka

Actually, I had no problem with the subject, just wanted clear direction as to exactly what we are discussing. I guess my frustration was more so confusion which is perhaps why it would appear that I was arguing on a tangent. Things happen.

There is no emphasis on people as individuals and the so-called 'colorblindness' is deeply rejected as hypocrisy — ssu

The one thing you said right.

Your opening post doesn't necessarily describe "really disturbed individuals — SophistiCat

Well have tangential thoughts are which are consistent with a psychological imbalance a la "thought disorders are considered "disturbed" according to the DSM.

it applies to a much wider range of people who are not skilled at writing and expressing their thoughts, or just don't put much effort into their posts. — SophistiCat

I noticed a couple people who write this it just kinda brought it to my attention.

To put it crudely, a forum with "philosophy" in its title tends to attract the loons in more than average numbers. — SophistiCat

I figured. I believe the same with psychology.

Perhaps there is a natural inclination to lead if there is a stagnant group with no direction. Of course nobody is born a leader but perhaps there is some primal instinct to direct oneself as well as others to a path.

A List of female thinkers from A to Z

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women_philosophers

What is the prognosis for having an interest in, or just being, unfocused? — Galuchat

I don't think having an interest in philosophy is the issue, but the issue could arise and inevitably be described by a professional as several things such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, thought disorder, or the like but this would have to be determined by a medical and psychiatric doctor to make these determinations. I'm making an observation not just as a clinician, but as someone who is an academic writer.

Are such people already "really disturbed", or inevitably "really disturbed"? — Galuchat

I think the determination of whether someone is currently having a mental breakdown would be determined by psychiatrist/psychologist. In my opinion, I believe it would be circumstantial. If I'm reading something that is hard to follow and the focus of what their writing is seems to go in all directions with no direction, I'd chalk this up as maybe the individual would not have a firm grip on the basics of writing. You must remember when people write like this the subject makes sense to them, everyone else just has to "get it." Where I start to think people are becoming disturb is if a person either repeats a subject multiple times (meaning create several threads regarding the same subject) or constantly creates subjects and constantly bombard the discussion with ideas that do not make sense or whose directions aren't going anywhere.

For example if your discussion is about Tupperware, and it diverts to politics or diverts to something totally opposite I may personally just chalk that up as you being discombobulated, but if you constantly write stuff and then you somehow relate it to Tupperware, and then politics and then religion then I'd probably think something mentally is going on that needs medical/psychiatric intervention.

At what point do interests become personality traits? — Galuchat

When there is an example of consistency in inconsistent thought as seen in a tangent. Meaning, someone always writing stuff but it seems to be all over the place, and its always when they write. Usually this is merely a byproduct of something psychological going on.

Perhaps this can explain a bit

Brain Maturity Extends Well Beyond Teen Years

"Under most laws, young people are recognized as adults at age 18. But emerging science about brain development suggests that most people don't reach full maturity until the age 25. Guest host Tony Cox discusses the research and its implications with Sandra Aamodt, neuroscientist and co-author of the book Welcome to Your Child's Brain...."

More:https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141164708

Define toxic?

Same as @Baden and @Hanover

I'm a woman and I'm confused. I know that there's a biological argument but is that really justifiable? — EcceHomo

Justifiable in what sense, that there aren't many female thinkers?

There are plenty of female thinkers! All you have to do is look at past and present. Unfortunately, psychology like philosophy and other social and "hard sciences" these disciplines have for the most part been dominated by men. That doesn't mean there are female contributors to the discipline. Now, when it comes to thinkers you'd have to be particular and specify in which discipline do you inquire where these female thinkers are.

For a long time, political correctness had any number of people believe that the Western civilization was the root of all wrongs done against women. Then the Muslims invaded, and that claim could no longer be credibly made, as some Muslims are worse by standards of feminism than any place in the West. — Ilya B Shambat

You started off wrong already

So now these people are having to decide whether to look like complete idiots and traitors and side with extremist Muslims, or to admit their error and side with their own countries in which they have enough rights to make their ridiculous claims. — Ilya B Shambat

Again you're starting off wrong making false equivalencies per your title.

The politically correct created a false Satan. They decided that there was a single root of evil. Of course they were wrong. — Ilya B Shambat

Who is the politically correct? Is this an ethical problem? Who is Satan, and does Satan represent an archetype and if so, what is it?

We see this with just about everything that is out there. Government. Corporate system.
Men. Women. Jews. Reason. Faith. Feelings. Ego. Soul. Science. Capitalism. — Ilya B Shambat

What does this have to do with evil and Satan?

Some muslims are more misogynistic than even the Western conservatives. A much uglier Satan is staring them straight in the face. They can no longer fool people as easily. — Ilya B Shambat

You're not making sense, and the fact that moderators are deleting your stuff means you are probably going off the hinge.

Donald Trump speaks not very well but the people nevertheless listen. (MEMO TO THE PEOPLE: Pay no attention to the fat man with bad hair standing behind the podium. He is an artless clod.) — Bitter Crank

hahahahaha

Thank you! I've been asking him that!

Very good synopsis of the early humans...It was a good read

Wait, what? They did what?

I don't think the OP was well explained at least to me...Instead of all this unnecessary jargon why can't people come out and just say

"I think the alt-right should not be demonized from their position as it appears to me that other groups similarly are expressing themselves the same way as the alt-right."

Simple.

You're the one who doesn't appreciate that what I've just described is an interpretation and not something that can be called a fact. — Judaka

It's not that, it is just that you're not making any sense. If I'm giving an overview of something it is meant to give you a wider perspective of the coming answer I'm going to give you. It is to help you why I'm stating that answer. For example a person might like the color red because long ago, said person wore a read shirt and was given a compliment of how good the color looked on the person. therefore, such person may like the color red because the color resonates with good memories of being complimented.

Your facts, if you call them that, to me are not making any sense. I thought we were talking about the alt-right and the double standards, yes? Well, again, there is no double standard when other cultures appreciate their lineage because how one presents their pride is a lot different than the alt-right. This is where I got into my historical revisionist explanation using the African-American diaspora model.

Let me re-explain.....

White supremacy in the United States as well as elsewhere have demonized many people of darker complexion over the centuries, from colonial times to present. People of color were taught indirectly and directly that their culture was inferior in comparison to the white culture. Fast forward today and post civil rights movement later in the United States, many people of color have grown to openly display pride of their culture, something that was taboo of the past. So when we have days in the United States that celebrate Pacific-Islanders, and African-Americans, and other cultures that have contributed to mankind it is to appreciate these hidden gems that were forgotten in a racist past.

When alt-right does it, they do it not to celebrate Polish history, or Celtic history, it is to promote the "white man's achievements" as Richard Spencer have stated several times. Richard Spencer, the spokesman of the alt-right wants a white utopia, free of anyone of color. This is different than how people of color celebrate their heritage. So to have the audacity to even insinuate a double standard is stupid at best, and retarded at worse.

To help the thread I suggest looking at the psychological research concerning the alt-right. To help I nominate Vox which wrote an article on the research to help. Then, come back here and reformat the actual point of the thread because we're losing touch here. here is the article:

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/8/15/16144070/psychology-alt-right-unite-the-right

but you still interpret me as saying racial discrimination is unchangeable and we should just accept it? — Judaka

I think you're either deficient in reading ability or reading what you want to read. I'd like to think the latter. Racism, and all that entails under that umbrella are learned, and just as these things are learned, they can be unlearned and can with reason be understood to be wrong. I'm curious to know how old are you because honestly I pray you don't write like this on school papers. It's almost like you have a thousand and one thoughts but you're conveying a different thought here. I'm doing my best to tie in my original position in the context of this thread's discussion but you're reading far too much into one thing then I have to go back and re-explain that thing and try to make sense of it to you.

The problem is that he's perpetuating it Sushi, his only defence for his perspective is the historical inequities and injustices that took place and their role in the modern context but that's just not good enough. — Judaka

I've listed some current issues I mean, you just don't like the answers. Again, my opinions on the historical relevance was to answer in overview, the issues you're having in trying to demonstrate a double standard.

I seriously think you have no clue what you're talking about because it certainly is coming out in your writing.

I am not against discrimination, prejudice, categorising people and so on, I accept these things as unchangable. — Judaka

Discrimination is changeable, this is why the civil rights movement prevailed. I am so glad you're not a policymaker.

Basically your view is extremely US-centric, which assumes that the US narrative is the only one that exists and everything follows it. — ssu

Because the alt-right has been made popular by the 2016 U.S. presidency. We only know about the alt-right through the actions here. Sure there are neo-nazis and right-wing conservatives here, but if there are examples of alt-right elsewhere feel free to list them here.

Focus on other issues, like from the fact that not everything in the continent of Africa is explained with Western colonization (and the Trans-Atlantic slave trade), is simply unimportant. — ssu

I highlighted this in context, I believ0e it was meant to shed to light on the pervasive issue concerning the subject at hand.



Looks like I misread

I was stating that it is unfair to associate someone with the “alt-right” just because they worry about their cultural identity being consumed (falsely or not doesn’t matter fro the point to stand; in reality I don’t think it’s as big an issue as some wish to make out). — I like sushi

Are you familiar with Richard Spencer? Have you listened to him speak? He most certainly proclaims the opposite.

As far as I'm concerned there is too much "I think" in this discussion and not enough facts going around.

Your historical facts did absolutely no such thing, you are telling me that the West is responsible for racial tensions in Africa — Judaka

Actually my attempt was to answer your inquiry regarding the supposed double standard between the expressions of cultural pride by alt-right versus the expression from other cultures. Using the early European colonial model, I was attempting to explain that given the historical fact that Africans and African-American have faced social injustice, the expression of cultural pride is nothing more than a fragmented culture coming together whereas the expression of pride from the alt-right is about the continuation of privilege and white superiority. But yes, from a historical point of view, the west does indeed have an influence on the past and even present tensions of Africa but that is another discussion for another thread. I have sufficient evidence to substantiate this claim.

Do you consider yourself a westerner? — Judaka

I consider myself a citizen of the United States.

There's really not much point in discussing the alt-right when you see them as the white version of BLM. — Judaka

I never said they were, now you're expressing cognitive dissonance. I never said they were comparable in fact I was saying the opposite you just added that in there yourself, there is a word for that, it is called conjecture. I actually said using the BLM group as an example, it is more multicultural and pluralistic ergo, welcoming than alt-right.

think you're the only poster I have had problems with due solely to me bringing up the alt-right, perhaps NKBJ but I knew about him before this thread and I expected trouble with him regardless. — Judaka

I have no issue with you because I don't know you. But if I need to correct you on things I actually studied in college and was grilled on, I will. I don't sit here to correct people with an ego, I most certainly will substantiate my claims with evidence. Not just skewed evidence but historical fact, I owe you that. Now, if you choose not to accept that fact then I don't know what to tell you. If you choose to have an issue with me that is on you, but I prefer to be the adult here.

How does your racialised solution perform better than simply identifying the problems of individuals with black-skin as problems of Americans and trying to solve them as efficiently and effectively as possible? — Judaka

I never proposed a solution to begin with. Again, my position was to give you an overview of how cultural pride expressed by people of color is different than the expression by the alt-right. How one is not seen as a double standard compared to one seen as racist. The historical overview I gave was for you to understand why cultures in particular the African-American culture expresses pride and where that foundation comes from. Me highlighting points regarding slavery and mistreatment were side discussions you and I had in addition to me demonstrating my position. I'd be more than happy to purpose a solution in relation to your thread.

What you're saying is really in my estimation, is not all that different from the alt-right's ethnocentric, racialised perspective. — Judaka

And what is it that I'm saying or have said? Can you quote the sentence that gave you that impression?

There's a moral high ground for you because you see minorities as victims, you see people as extenuations of victims of their ethnic histories but it's superficial. — Judaka

I don't know where you got my overview of the historical implications of African-American pride and the experience of subsequent racism and systemic racism via laws as something that is relatable to black Americans feeling like everyday victims. There is no harm in me talking about the residual effects of slavery and racism and how it affects the experiences of black Americans today. My intent was for you to understand where I was going with that explanation, but apparently I failed because you took this to an entirely different direction.

At the end of the day, race means too much for you, condemning that would be a step towards ending racism. — Judaka

You have no clue what you're talking about. It would behoove you next time when constructing a thread to make more sense. The fact that @I like sushi has to do re-explain everything is perhaps your best indicator that maybe you confused everyone.

is whether or not there is a tone of hypocracy in calling “white” people racist because they are proud of their country and wish preserve and honour what they view as “quintessentially X”. — I like sushi

But that is the problem because the alt-right although not specified as a hate group, its members espouse more than simple cultural pride rhetoric. If we take the Charlottesville murder for example, the alt-right's rhetoric, which had a relationship to the death of Heather Heyer, is dangerous. this isn't about Celtic pride, or Polish pride, this is about separating whites from all other cultures. Richard Spencer himself espoused the idea that whites "built civilization." As a stark contrast, when black activist talk about black unity and black pride, it is more along the lines of unifying a fragmented culture in light of having a history of subjugation and unjust laws (e.g. Jim Crow). In other words, a battered people showing pride of their culture openly whereas before, there were actual laws against it. African-Americans, Pacific-Islanders, Asians, etc when showing pride show pride in their culture and the benefits of their culture, whereas the alt-right are more along the lines of segregation and superiority. No double standard here if you are familiar with cultural pluralism.

do people in countries with more stability and freedom than elsewhere have good reason to be worried about losing their stability and freedom? — I like sushi

How would people lose their freedom?

The problem with that is that fixing the problems "for all citizens of the country" will never happen until people acknowledge the way things are. — T Clark

This is crucial in getting rid of social issues.

It's really hard to get reliable information about what the alt-right is and what they're not. — Judaka

If that is the case, maybe you should've done more research in what the group stands for prior to making a thread about them.

I'm trying to draw parallels between the alt-right and other groups which are not criticised for the same type of behaviour and attitudes — Judaka

That's the problem there aren't really any other groups you can compare except maybe the Nation of Islam. you couldn't compare the alt-right to BLM because for one, BLM's organization is composed of people of different ethnic backgrounds. Two, BLM asks for police transparency and accountability when it comes to unjust police shootings. Now when you use east Asian examples you'd have to be more detailed about how this runs parallel to the alt-right. I think the burden was on you to instead of writing a whole bunch of jargon, to be as specific as possible.

As you can see in the subsequent responses, you've could've presented this quite differently than how you have done thus far.

I should have chosen an entirely different way to go about it — Judaka

That you should have.

US culture appears to be a rather different thing to anything I’ve found in Europeans, Australians or Canadians. — I like sushi

Because the US culture is composed of a microcosm of other cultures that inhabit these lands that contribute to the whole of society. We are a diverse bunch and there is no single worldview we hold, and we are constantly moving away from socially conservative values to more progressive liberal values. We are an increasingly inclusive country and our ideas of the world will change and this is incompatible with the alt-right.

I mostly made the thread because I watched a video from a more reasonable youtuber who calls himself an alt-right speaker named millennial woes and got a lot of my information about the alt-right from him — Judaka

That is your problem. Instead of getting an overview of what the alt-right stands for, you decided to be influenced by the ramblings of some young kid and the fact that the person was a millennial takes the cake (no offense to millennials). As a researcher myself, I hardly take the online ramblings of someone with cultural grievances seriously unless they are substantiated by facts via research or some evidence that is unbiased that can support their view.

I think Anaxagoras is viewing this whole “alt-right” thing as purely from a US perspective? I could be wrong. — I like sushi

You are right. I am merely commenting on the alt-right here in the United States. I mean the only reason why are familiar with the alt-right is basically from the 2016 Trump presidential election.

If you have reduced your claim to an observation that racism occurs in all countries, and from people of all skin tones, then that is uncontroversial. I doubt many, if any, would care to argue. It is the claim in the OP that racism is only criticised when it is done by white people that is unsupportable. — andrewk

Right

Okay, why did you bring up that racial intolerance in South America and Africa are the fault of European colonialism? — Judaka

Because it is historical fact.

You're telling me that you had no intentions of blaming any group for this? — Judaka

It is common sense. Alt-Right is a racist group. Alt-right argues from a revisionist point of view, and argues further that their grievances come from multiculrialism, and the "Jewish conspiracy" of a take over. My position is to counter that by providing historical facts that contradict those notions. I subsequently show that through history which has a residual affect today, that whites are in no way in danger of being replaced socially or economically considering based on past history and their residual influences today there is an economic gap still in place. I therefore added that the alt-right's position is mostly irrational fear mongering because as reality would have indicated, whites are still by in large a privileged group socially and economically.

The historical facts do not speak for themselves, you've interpreted their meaning and you've interpreted that individuals should be held accountable for the actions of people of a similar race or ancestry. — Judaka

Let's start over because obviously you're not getting it. Let us bring it back to the subject at hand regarding the issue. Since you felt to coherently explain the alt-right's position, let us be clear what the alt-right stand for. According to USA Today, "the alt-right is a collection of far-right groups and people dedicated to "white ethnonationalism" in Western civilization, or the preservation of a white populace in Western countries. They view the presence of people of color, immigrants and religious minorities as a threat to their "white identity" (Source:https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/07/23/alt-right-philosophy-white-identity-civil-rights/800232002/).

Southern Poverty Law does not hold the alt-right as a hate group due to its fragmentation but subgroups under the alt-right like AltRight Corporation in Alexandria, Virginia, and Alternative Right in Atlanta are considered hate groups. Now based on the aforementioned concept of what the alt-right stands for, it is essentially stating that my existence in the United States or people who look like me threatens the existence of white identity. In fact, Richard Spencer even goes far into believing that I should not be in a country that is considered "white." Richard Spencer believes that the "white man built the United States" which is obviously false considering the people who actually did the manual labor did not look Caucasian. With that being said, it is safe to say that the basis of the alt-right and their intention is racism.

As for your views about the alt-right, you aren't really making an effort, I don't want to talk about them with you. — Judaka

Well you're not making any sense regarding the subject thread. As others have pointed out here it would seem that you're presenting your premise as if you support the alt-right.

I was thinking more along the lines of what happened in Brasil. Most people remain oblivious to the utterly vile chapter of human history and focus being taken away by slavery in the US - I assume you know about the wholesale slaughter I’m talking about and why the “Tiger Coast” is called the tiger coast. — I like sushi

All in all, my point of reference was in regards to the psychological affect of European colonial influence. I'm not interested in revisiting history, I'm more concerned about how people of color over this planet saw themselves after they've been influenced by European colonialism, from the Indians to the Africans to the South Americans.

was referring to the “sigh” and my assumed ignorance — I like sushi

No. But it seems common place that when I'm actually explaining the direct issue and giving a historical background all the responses are far left going way back in history. This gives me the impression many of you aren't really familiar with African diaspora and how European colonialism played a part in the causality of what we are currently discussing. This redirection of yours is basically going to lead us into the "whataboutism."

You disagree Anglo-Saxon whites are sensitive to interpretations based on ethnicity or that other ethnicities/races aren't sensitive to it? — Judaka

I disagree with the whole notion you presented with the alt-right. The alt-right are fear mongering cowards who are pandering to the idea that whites are in danger of being replaced due to low birth rate and the evolution of progressivism. The point is the alt-right wants to maintain white superiority, period...

As for your other comments, a lot of people are criticising you for being historically inaccurate — Judaka

A lot of people aren't criticizing me. I just informed an individual on what I was referring to, next!

I have a problem with you claiming that whites are responsible for things that happened before their lifetime purely because they're white. — Judaka

I never said that, how about quote me specifically on exactly where I said that.....

This idea of ethnic history is a huge problem in so far as negating the interpretative relevance of race, not to mention it doesn't make much sense to blame individuals for the actions of groups they belong to. — Judaka

If you say so, but historical facts speak for themselves.

So either you're blaming people who have been dead for a long time or you're blaming people for crimes on the basis of their ethnic heritage. — Judaka

I never specified a blame. How about stop jumping the gun and falsely interpret what I said and actually quote what I said. I gave an overall historical account why the alt-right is a fringe group that is not accepted. As far as I see it, its a bunch of whiny white dudes complaining about other people regarding multiculturalism and claiming other groups need safe spaces yet tout the idea of segregation because they want their own safe space themselves, sounds like a hypocritical band of nut jobs.

What I am saying is that there are a lot of similarities between the east Asian countries trying to maintain ethnic hegemony and what the alt-right want, similarities between the alt-right wanting whites to be prioritised in "white" countries over non-whites in the same way that governments across the world prioritise their majority races. — Judaka

The alt-right want the United States to go back to being a "white country" ergo, they want whites to go back to having all benefits and maintaining the privileges. This is why they marched on the college campus stating "jews will not replace us." The alt-right feel the Jews economically and socially are influencing society replacing their control over society. I don't even know what a "white country" is anymore. The United States will never be a white country and by 2040 whites will be the minority in the United States. If the alt-right is so concerned perhaps they need to go back to Europe and start their utopia there.

. Hence the idea that Europeans invaded Africa and fought there just indigenous tribes is either an ignorant or a condescending view or both. — ssu

I'm talking about the actual British, Portuguese, and other European influences in the countries of Africa. I'm referring to people involved in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade stop deflecting. How about reading this

https://jspp.psychopen.eu/article/view/143/139

To think of Africa consisting of 'indigenous tribes' when Europeans came is again a typical condescending view. — ssu

Indigenous meaning, originating from a specific place or native. Are we really getting into a play with words now? If you want to call a country a state whatever.

What kind of tribe as you call it was "Ethiopia" or the "Ottoman Empire"? — ssu

Which Ethiopian tribes? Somali? Tigraway? Oromo?

Ottoman Empire? Turkic people? Khazars? What the heck is your point because it's confusing?

Yes he has, look at his presidency....No other president has ever been challenged by their origin. No other president has ever faced such racial backlash as Obama. He was not privilege in the slightest sense when it came to "race." His name was questioned. His religion was questioned. His country of origin was questioned.

Trump has a wife who abused the immigration system yet Obama had to produce a birth certificate...

Because in my post I'm specifically targeting the experiences of people of color in particular African people and you're telling me, a person of color and of African origin that it is not the full picture when in my experience and in historical fact, it is.

This is not the full picture. In most societies, where manual labour was deemed below the given aristocracy in power, people were judged by their skin tone as an indication of being a “mere” labourer rather than of some apparent “nobler blood,” or some such nonsense. It’s not merely about colonnialism. — I like sushi

Sigh....I take it you're unfamiliar with African diaspora...History and evidence has shown it is about colonialism....I point to the letter of King Leopold II:

"The task that is given to fulfill is very delicate and requires much tact. You will go certainly to evangelize, but your evangelization must inspire above all Belgium interests. Your principal objective in our mission in the Congo is never to teach the n*****s to know God, this they know already. They speak and submit to a Mungu, one Nzambi, one Nzakomba, and what else I don’t know.

They know that to kill, to sleep with someone else’s wife, to lie and to insult is bad. Have courage to admit it; you are not going to teach them what they know already. Your essential role is to facilitate the task of administrators and industrials, which means you will go to interpret the gospel in the way it will be the best to protect your interests in that part of the world. For these things, you have to keep watch on dis-interesting our savages from the richness that is plenty [in their underground. To avoid that, they get interested in it, and make you murderous] competition and dream one day to overthrow you.

Your knowledge of the gospel will allow you to find texts ordering, and encouraging your followers to love poverty, like “Happier are the poor because they will inherit the heaven” and, “It’s very difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom of God.” You have to detach from them and make them disrespect everything which gives courage to affront us. I make reference to their Mystic System and their war fetish – warfare protection – which they pretend not to want to abandon, and you must do everything in your power to make it disappear."

See more:https://www.africanglobe.net/africa/letter-king-leopold-ii-colonial-missionaries-heading-africa-1883/

Tell that to Obama. — Brett

Obama is irrelevant to the discussion.

Typical.

Most, if not all, people are unaware of the privileges they possess. — I like sushi

Sure many people are not aware of their privileges, but we aren't talking about many, I'm talking specifically about white people. For example a friend of mine invited another guy out who he knew for a long time. While we were drinking and making small talk, my friend's companion felt comfortable enough to tell me "hey, say white power" as if it was funny and relevant to the discussion we had. Suffice to say I was offended, but he wasn't and felt at the time there was no harm in telling someone of color to say white power in a joking manner. To him it wasn't harmful because he wasn't the target. In my life I find many Caucasians oblivious to the things they say and do, and I believe these behaviors are the result of being represented for a long time in society. I believe that when these harmful jokes, and comments are made they are inconsiderate to the pains of others which by in large is the result of the comfort they have due to their own privilege in society.

Human actively has played out pretty much in the same on a global scale — I like sushi

You misunderstand my point. The same way Indians from India have an issue with internal colorism is the same way South Americans have an issue with how they see each other. Historical European colonialism has influenced many cultures to essentially hate themselves. Not just by placing unjust systems to prevent equality, but to convince people that their way of life and who they are is the result of their own failures because of WHO they are as a culture.