|
Racism as we know it developed alongside capitalism as the Europeans had to justify using slaves to work in their colonies in the Americas. Christians were absolutely not supposed to be enslaving Christians, but dammit, all these pagans keep dying of disease, how are we supposed to make any money?! I don't agree that they're inherently linked, but their shared history makes it very difficult to unravel the two, and it certainly can't be done by just electing a few minorities or promoting #girlboss CEOs (as can be seen by how many of those girlboss CEOs turned out to be exactly as exploitative as their male counterparts). Ultimately that's why I do lean more towards 'no war but class war' - a black capitalist is a capitalist first. Putting more diversity into the capitalist class won't improve anything for anyone except those specific individuals, because wealth overrides everything and wow, turns out Cosby, Obama, Harris and Chappelle will happily spin around and stomp on the people who are supposed to be "like them" according to idpol.
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 00:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 08:52 |
|
|
Until we find a version of capitalism that doesn't rely on racism or whatever bigotry to depress wages and maximize profits, I'm fine with committing the sin of believing something without formal proof and just say "capitalism needs racism." It's ok to believe things that we can't technically prove but have mountains of evidence for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 00:31
|
|
|
There's a lot that's been written on racial capitalism so I don't think it can be dismissed easily as a concept. https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/robin-d-g-kelley-introduction-race-capitalism-justice/ quote:So what did Robinson mean by “racial capitalism”? Building on the work of another forgotten black radical intellectual, sociologist Oliver Cox, Robinson challenged the Marxist idea that capitalism was a revolutionary negation of feudalism. Instead capitalism emerged within the feudal order and flowered in the cultural soil of a Western civilization already thoroughly infused with racialism. Capitalism and racism, in other words, did not break from the old order but rather evolved from it to produce a modern world system of “racial capitalism” dependent on slavery, violence, imperialism, and genocide. Capitalism was “racial” not because of some conspiracy to divide workers or justify slavery and dispossession, but because racialism had already permeated Western feudal society. The first European proletarians were racial subjects (Irish, Jews, Roma or Gypsies, Slavs, etc.) and they were victims of dispossession (enclosure), colonialism, and slavery within Europe. Indeed, Robinson suggested that racialization within Europe was very much a colonial process involving invasion, settlement, expropriation, and racial hierarchy. Insisting that modern European nationalism was completely bound up with racialist myths, he reminds us that the ideology of Herrenvolk (governance by an ethnic majority) that drove German colonization of central Europe and “Slavic” territories “explained the inevitability and the naturalness of the domination of some Europeans by other Europeans.” To acknowledge this is not to diminish anti-black racism or African slavery, but rather to recognize that capitalism was not the great modernizer giving birth to the European proletariat as a universal subject, and the “tendency of European civilization through capitalism was thus not to homogenize but to differentiate—to exaggerate regional, subcultural, and dialectical differences into ‘racial’ ones.” https://www.kundnani.org/what-is-racial-capitalism/ quote:In recent years, the term “racial capitalism” has proliferated among scholars and activists. Articles in places such as New Yorker and Vox have introduced the term to a wide readership. The term is beginning to carry institutional weight in the academy, with a plethora of research initiatives emerging in recent years, and funding from the Mellon Foundation. But we are still in the process of clarifying what we might mean by “racial capitalism.” Go, for example, to the website of the Research Initiative on Racial Capitalism at UC Davis and click on the link for “What is racial capitalism?” and you arrive at a blank page. Edit: really just presenting some stuff for people to read and talk about and try to push that the idea "capitalism is dependent on racism" is more complicated than "oh yeah? Well give me some numbers that prove it". Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Jun 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 00:33
|
|
|
I am rather suspicious of the suggestion of a 'simultaneous emergence of racism and capitalism'
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 00:42
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:I am rather suspicious of the suggestion of a 'simultaneous emergence of racism and capitalism' Why?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 00:45
|
|
|
I believe Hudson is saying that they emerged into the modern world together entwined, not that they were created at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 00:52
|
|
|
outside of maybe a semantic-based version of that statement, idk how someone argues that racism (or a pretty much 1:1 approximation of it) doesn't significantly predate the emergence of capitalismGumball Gumption posted:I believe Hudson is saying that they emerged into the modern world together entwined, not that they were created at the same time. that would make more sense, but also there were slave plantations for thousands of years being worked by subjugated ethnic groups that did not give rise to capitalism so while I agree that there's certainly an interaction, idk it seems like a particularly modernist perspective on it to overly link them that said, hell if i know, i should read up on it more later when I have some free time Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Jun 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 00:53
|
|
|
Yeah I thought it was pretty well established that the nature of racism and our ideas about race in general changed at the start of the colonial era.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 00:56
|
|
|
Europe spent something like a millennia doing purges of Jews, well before capitalism was ever a thing. That's just one group.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 01:01
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I did that in my previous post: Almost everybody has to do jobs in capitalist society, whether they like those jobs or not. What keeps them desperate is that if they don't work, they lose access to reliable shelter and food. The capitalists don't really care who does the worst jobs, as long as someone's there to do them. And that's something they can ensure by controlling the supply of better jobs or otherwise gatekeeping access to them, allowing them to control the number of people allowed to have different tiers of job. The most powerful instrument of keeping the working class divided right now in America is probably education. The fight over affirmative action reflects elite disagreement on how much race should be factored into that division, but even if college admissions perfectly matched the country's racial demographic mix, education quality alone would be enough to divide the US into several different tiers of class, ranging from the high-school dropouts working the lowest rungs of the job market to the middle managers six or seven figgies because they went to the same schools as the lower ranks of the capitalist class. And the American people are quite happy to play along with purely class-based discrimination even if there's no racial or sexual basis for that discrimination. Just look at how rural whites and urban whites are happy to disparage each other as "elitist ivory-tower intellectuals" and "stupid rednecks", or how customers of any race will happily treat customer service employees of any race like absolute poo poo. And let's not even get into the numerous examples of pasty-white European countries with hardly any non-white population to speak of, which still manage to do plenty of capitalism despite not having a significant non-white population to oppress. Gumball Gumption posted:There's a lot that's been written on racial capitalism so I don't think it can be dismissed easily as a concept. Reading past the titles and headlines to the actual content, I don't really think that really fits into the specific discussion we're having now. It appears that the theory of racial capitalism was something specifically crafted as a counterargument against pro-capitalist narratives that describe capitalism as a form of liberation from racism, tearing down the strict social hierarchies that feudal societies imposed and replacing them with a revolutionary class mobility based on wage labor. It argues that (contrary to the arguments of pro-capitalists) capitalism didn't shatter those old social hierarchies, and was able to coexist with them to quite an extent even in cases where they didn't fit into the capitalist system at all. For example, your second link describes South Africa as maintaining a capitalist system for whites paired with a non-capitalist feudal system for blacks, and proposes that racialism was the link that allowed non-capitalist systems of organization to maintain a role within a capitalist system. And since racism was endemic in European societies before capitalism arose, capitalism did not shatter it, but was rather able to incorporate it. But given that nobody's parroting pro-capitalist propaganda about capitalism destroying racism altogether here (although I think some of the anti-idpol arguments come closer to that than they realize), a theory aimed specifically at debunking that propaganda doesn't really fit clearly into this discussion, except that its name is easy for people to radically misinterpret if they're not familiar with the theory and didn't read the provided material.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 01:19
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:outside of maybe a semantic-based version of that statement, idk how someone argues that racism (or a pretty much 1:1 approximation of it) doesn't significantly predate the emergence of capitalism Yeah since it's not saying that racism didn't exist before capitalism. The general idea is that capitalism requires racism and racism directly influenced the spread of capitalism. Cedric Robinson is specifically arguing that those early European discriminations and bloodline divisions, the racial ordering of feudal Europe, carried over into capitalism. That racism is the tool to allow the inequality necessary for capitalism. They're expanding and refuting Marx' idea that capitalism was a liberation from feudal orders though that's also a capitalist argument. And I did say the whole point was to give people something to read that's more interesting than the direction the discussion was going which was kind of dumb and very "  post the numbers proving capitalism and racism are linked"
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 01:30
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Yeah since it's not saying that racism didn't exist before capitalism. The general idea is that capitalism requires racism and racism directly influenced the spread of capitalism. Cedric Robinson is specifically arguing that those early European discriminations and bloodline divisions, the racial ordering of feudal Europe, carried over into capitalism. That racism is the tool to allow the inequality necessary for capitalism. Huh? If you’re talking about my posts, I think that capitalism in the US definitely benefits from racism (if that’s what you mean by “linked”). However, I don’t think that eradicating racism solely depends on eradicating capitalism. Which is what I was trying to convey, so I apologize if it wasn’t clear
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 01:52
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:It's the other way around; Americans use "leftism" as a near-synonym for "liberalism," because everything to the left of the Clintons spent roughly three generations not just out of political power, but so far out of power that they were effectively shut out of the national political discussion completely (counting from, say, the initiation of the Hollywood black list in 1947 to Bernie's candidacy in 2016). This is way too early. Truman tried to nationalize the steel industry and LBJ launched the war on poverty. Charlz Guybon fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Jun 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 01:55
|
|
|
The Romans didn't consider themselves part of "the white race" with their equals the Germanic tribes, destined to dominate "the slave races" of Africa. Roman slavery was widespread and often brutal, but it wasn't based on "everybody of this color is automatically a slave". Likewise there were no demands for birth certificates when guys from Africa or Arabia rose to become Emperors. In the medieval era, religion was the driver of conflict. The Ethiopians were treated as equals on the few occasions there was contact, Genghis Khan was hailed as a hero until people realized The persecutions of Jews were religious in nature, and the Crusades hammered into whoever was a heretic or infidel regardless of their skin color. I realize this seems like splitting hairs - what does it matter if the angry mob burning your house down is technically doing it because you worship god wrong, not because you're too brown. But I think it does matter because racism as we know it is not inherent to humanity. It is about 500 years old and it was conjured up so some rich people could get richer. It's not a demon unable to be exorcised, it is something we can beat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 01:58
|
|
|
One of the common criticisms of the BMI scale is that it fails to take muscle mass & bone structure into account, with the implication that it overestimates the prevalence of obesity on an individual level. In my experience, this criticism is most often heard from people with BMIs of more than 25  Well, this unreleased study seems to suggest the opposite is true: BMI underestimates the prevalence of obesity, when defined as bodyfat percentage of greater than 25% in men: quote:Twice as many US adults have obesity based on assessment of their fat volume by DEXA scan compared with measurement of body mass index (BMI), a finding that highlights the shortcomings of BMI and adds to the growing case that BMI alone should not be the default gauge for obesity. I suppose the conclusion isn’t anything new, technically speaking. BMI is limited in its validity when used to assess individuals, but I’m surprised to hear that it underestimates the true prevalence of obesity. The study hasn’t been published yet as this was just presented at a medical conference on Friday. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/993366?ecd=WNL_trdalrt_pos1_230618_etid5543590&uac=286707AX&impID=5543590
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 02:05
|
|
|
UKJeff posted:One of the common criticisms of the BMI scale is that it fails to take muscle mass & bone structure into account, with the implication that it overestimates the prevalence of obesity on an individual level. In my experience, this criticism is most often heard from people with BMIs of more than 25 cool, im even fatter than I thought I was
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 02:33
|
|
|
This might just turn out to be an enjoyable media circus. https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1670165526214066177
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 02:38
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:This is way too early. Truman tried nationalize the steel industry and LBJ launched the war on poverty. Sure, but I'm taking more about culture than policy. Truman and LBJ weren't calling themselves communists or socialists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 02:42
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:Obama compared himself to 80s/90s Republicans Yeah, it's not even a decade since Democrats were proudly admitting they'd moved to the right and running away from progressive legislation they'd passed to appeal to mythical moderate conservatives, then wondering why they were losing elections. Byzantine posted:I realize this seems like splitting hairs - what does it matter if the angry mob burning your house down is technically doing it because you worship god wrong, not because you're too brown. But I think it does matter because racism as we know it is not inherent to humanity. It is about 500 years old and it was conjured up so some rich people could get richer. It's not a demon unable to be exorcised, it is something we can beat. This is the key part, there's a narrative that racism is somehow inherent to humanity and simply eradicating it is unthinkable, when it's very much the opposite- it was invented wholecloth to justify colonial exploitation. There's variants and quirks to it- despite being idealised by racist capitalists, the plantation owner class of the South hated capitalism as a threat to their neo-feudal way of life, but even when their power was effectively broken the new ruling class maintained the racist culture because it was incredibly useful to them. And modern idpol capitalism is just a newer evolution of it, that serves the same purpose as the old ones- maintaining racist power structures by diffusing responsibility, and letting a few women and minorities in who've been thoroughly vetted for compliance with the system. The problems are specifically atomised, with leftists painted as whiners fixated on irrelevant things, when breaking up the big banks probably would have a measurable impact on ending racism and sexism, regardless of how many rainbows they hang about the place. Ghost Leviathan fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Jun 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 03:02
|
|
|
Hey, maybe off topic has anybody else heard of Scripps News? I found it on my TV through antenna and it seems to be a low budget leftist news channel that’s more left than MSNBC. It’s… kinda neat? I feel pandered to, in a good way. Awful name though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 03:38
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Sure, but I'm taking more about culture than policy. Truman and LBJ weren't calling themselves communists or socialists. Neither did FDR. The closest a mainstream candidate has come to that was probably La Follette in 1924.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 03:53
|
|
|
And those policies were explicitly designed to accompany the crackdown on leftists by making just enough concessions to the (white) working classes to convince them they didn't need socialism. See also the assassination and whitewashing or erasure of Civil Rights leaders, MLK turned into a bland pacifist who asked America nicely not to be so darn racist and so they fixed everything, and then he died for some reason oh well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 06:25
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:Obama compared himself to 80s/90s Republicans When he said that to counter the Latino-targeting ads claiming he was the love child of Castro and Chavez, none of them even believed it meant he wasn't a socialist. I don't get why anyone acts like it was "bragging" , or that it was the night he was cursed by a magical imp to reveal his true name.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 07:53
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:The Romans didn't consider themselves part of "the white race" with their equals the Germanic tribes, destined to dominate "the slave races" of Africa. Roman slavery was widespread and often brutal, but it wasn't based on "everybody of this color is automatically a slave". Likewise there were no demands for birth certificates when guys from Africa or Arabia rose to become Emperors. I'd argue that the Romans were absolutely, explicitly racist in many many ways. While you had guys who became emperor despite not being from Italy (Iberia and Illyria producing some of the best later emperors), you also had guys whose "barbaric" origins meant that they could never be emperor despite having the biggest army in the empire under their control (EG: Stilicho), so had to put puppet emperors of the "correct" origin in place to rule through. Just because the Romans believed they could "civilise the savage barbarians" and turn them into Roman citizens doesn't stop them being massive racists. Sure, it wasn't more modern "skin colour" racism, but it was absolutely racism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 09:59
|
|
|
There's a lot to be said about in-group out-group discrimination and its relation to empire. That said, more specifically the kind of racism recognisable in the modern day- heavily based on skin colour and aimed towards the global south- absolutely was invented by European colonial empires wanting to stop the underclass at home from realising they had more in common with the colonial subjects being abused, exploited and plundered than they had with the people benefiting from the plundering and exploitation. And the dynamic has never really changed from that, aside from adapting slightly to new conditions. Something came up a while back about the generation of Democrat women who got into power around the 80s/90s who don't want to be told to step aside, but I can't help but feel that ties in with White Feminism and the vibe of basically upper-class white women who just want their turn to run the empire. Well, Hillary did kinda give the game away there. Killer robot posted:When he said that to counter the Latino-targeting ads claiming he was the love child of Castro and Chavez, none of them even believed it meant he wasn't a socialist. I don't get why anyone acts like it was "bragging" , or that it was the night he was cursed by a magical imp to reveal his true name. When someone tells you who they are, believe them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 10:17
|
|
|
Gort posted:I'd argue that the Romans were absolutely, explicitly racist in many many ways. While you had guys who became emperor despite not being from Italy (Iberia and Illyria producing some of the best later emperors), you also had guys whose "barbaric" origins meant that they could never be emperor despite having the biggest army in the empire under their control (EG: Stilicho), so had to put puppet emperors of the "correct" origin in place to rule through. They were cultural chauvinists, yes. That is not racism. The concept of a theory of race came much much later. You are projecting a comparatively modern idea backwards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 10:36
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:They were cultural chauvinists, yes. That is not racism. The concept of a theory of race came much much later. You are projecting a comparatively modern idea backwards. Eh, "so and so can never be emperor, he's a Vandal, we need someone from Italy" seems pretty slam-dunk racist to me. And all the exterminations of entire tribes seem pretty bad too
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 10:57
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:They were cultural chauvinists, yes. That is not racism. The concept of a theory of race came much much later. You are projecting a comparatively modern idea backwards. This is like the "it's a Republic, not a Democracy !!!" of racism
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 11:20
|
|
|
vorebane posted:This might just turn out to be an enjoyable media circus. This feels like the lawyer version of a public execution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 12:21
|
|
|
Gort posted:Eh, "so and so can never be emperor, he's a Vandal, we need someone from Italy" seems pretty slam-dunk racist to me. It’s chauvinism based on culture, not socially-constructed biological races. There is a difference, and you are wrong. Failed Imagineer posted:This is like the "it's a Republic, not a Democracy !!!" of racism Correct, different concepts have different names and mean different things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 12:58
|
|
|
Gort posted:And all the exterminations of entire tribes seem pretty bad too You'd have to go ahead to the School of Salamanca in the 16th century before you get (western) legal thought to the point that every human, even a member of a defeated outgroup, is born with a limited set of rights. Contemporaries would have seen little problem with a little genocide left and right, as the concept of (legal) rights for a defeated enemy was in no way present. Same with race. Greeks considered Aithiopians different as they "live closer to the sun and are burnt as a result". There's a sense that others are different. There's no sense that those differences makes one inherently superior or inferior. Racism (or other -isms) needs prescriptive stereotypes to harm. Be mindful of projecting modern-day biases and frames of reference on the past. It leads to useless caricatures.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 13:43
|
|
|
Meatball posted:This feels like the lawyer version of a public execution. I don't think you are wrong, this is very much a point being made.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 13:59
|
|
|
We’ve already got people using racism to mean any ethnic bigotry and people using racism to specifically mean the skin-tone based version born of colonialism and the slave trade. Idk y’all are gonna have to pick one or the other to avoid endless pedantry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 14:02
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:We’ve already got people using racism to mean any ethnic bigotry and people using racism to specifically mean the skin-tone based version born of colonialism and the slave trade. Idk y’all are gonna have to pick one or the other to avoid endless pedantry. I don't see why this is necessary. Pedants aren't accomplishing anything useful and can be handily disregarded by simply scrolling. If someone wants to say "I agree that the thing you said happened, happened, but I don't like that word for it" then there's no real dispute.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 14:13
|
|
|
Remember those "few bad apples" in the Minneapolis Police Department who murdered George Floyd 3 years ago? Shortly after that incident, the Justice Department began investigating the department regarding their policing practices. And they just released their report. Turns out it's more than a few, and might be the whole bunch. None of what they found is surprising to hear, but it is surprising that it seems like the government is now starting to take notice. Unsurprisingly, the report found that the cops would often use unreasonable force against against their suspects (which were disproportionately Black or Native American) and often targeted people who commited no violations at all, but instead would "punish" people who criticized the police or simply made them angry. quote:“Our investigation found that the systemic problems in MPD made what happened to George Floyd possible,” the report states. Aside from targeting minorities, they often employed unconstitutional uses of deadly force, often without identifying any immediate threat, and also against people who were only a danger to themselves. quote:In one example cited by the report, a woman had been shot by an officer after she reportedly “spooked” him as she came to his police car. The neck restraint used that killed Floyd was found to have been used by officers almost 200 times from 2016-2020. And, unsprisingly, the Department found that there were officers, some in leadership positions, who would make racist or descriminatory comments to other officers. quote:During one of the protests following Floyd’s murder, an MPD lieutenant said a group of protesters were likely mostly White because “there’s not looting and fires.” Quotes cited from here: https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/16/politics/minneapolis-police-department-justice-george-floyd/index.html Additionally, though I didn't find it mentioned in the CNN article, according to another source I found, the city and the police department have entered into a "consent decree," which basically means that the DOJ is overseeing everything in that department and is setting reformation benchmarks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 14:22
|
|
|
The particular flavor of anti-Black racism we enjoy today certainly traces its roots to colonial capitalism, but I think that's different from racism itself being a capitalist invention. Considering ancient identification of in-groups and out-groups based on their place of birth and ethnicity to be distinct from modern "racism" is in a way buying into the false conception of race as an actual biological classification. To say, "well, it wasn't based on skin color, so it wasn't racism," relies on the idea that "skin color" is a distinct method of "otherizing" from the social impulses that persecuted Jews or Roma or that were used to justify the crusades. There are a lot more similarities than differences, especially considering that out-group designation was often used in the ancient world and feudal societies as a justification for economic subjugation, just as it was in the colonial age. Black people were made targets of bigotry for economic and historical reasons, but bigotry wasn't invented for the purpose of being weaponized against Africans - it was always there. Could Europeans have been taught to loathe and disrespect Africans so easily and thoroughly if it wasn't playing off an existing flaw in the human psyche? One thing that distinguishes anti-Black (and anti-Native, and later anti-East Asian) racism is that once the idea that black people were inferior had taken hold, it provided a very handy and visible way for white people to tell who wasn't as good as them, whereas you might not notice a Jewish guy if he's not actively and visibly practicing Judaism. That might explain the effectiveness and persistence of anti-African racism, and why it still exists long after it's been economically useful. (And no, mass incarceration is not economically useful - state budgets for prisons are 150 times higher than private prison profits, and the vast majority of prison labor is not sold for profit but rather used for running prisons.) This is kind of one of those "all bad things are caused by capitalism and no bad things can be fixed as long as capitalism exists" arguments, which don't account for the pre-capitalist world not being any better, from a social and economic justice standpoint, than the post-capitalist world, and which often strike me as starting from a conclusion and working backwards. Edgar Allen Ho posted:We’ve already got people using racism to mean any ethnic bigotry and people using racism to specifically mean the skin-tone based version born of colonialism and the slave trade. Idk y’all are gonna have to pick one or the other to avoid endless pedantry.  To summarize my post in the context of yours, the latter pretty much was caused by capitalism, which was taking advantage of the former, which obviously predates capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 14:33
|
|
|
I also think that if Black people didn't exist in America, if we didn't have this history of racial subjugation, then we would've invented them. That is to say, we would've readily invented bigotries. The "white" identity only exists in opposition to blackness, and would be happy to subdivide itself into a hierarchy in its absence. Some of our waves of immigrants, likely whichever of them had the most "un-American" culture (like Catholics), would've been kept as an underclass. Maybe these bigotries would be less virulent and tenacious, and they would obviously be more mutable as "passing" between various European ethnicities is a lot easier than disguising your race. But I don't think we'd all be living in harmony or anything. The Kelly comic would still exist, it just wouldn't have the guy spinning the basketball on his finger. e: To be clear, society as organized does, because of capitalism, pretty much require an "underclass," so that the more comfortable can cheaply enjoy the fruits of their labor. But I'm on board with those who say that that underclass doesn't have to be defined by race, or any other physiological trait. I think MPF was onto something in pointing to education as our main source of creating that division in the 21st century. Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 14:44 on Jun 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 14:40
|
|
|
You can look at caste systems to see that racism and othering don't need capitalism to exist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 14:55
|
|
|
Madkal posted:You can look at caste systems to see that racism and othering don't need capitalism to exist. Yeah im.not sure how you meaningfully differentiate a caste system from "racism", it would seem that the set of the former contains the latter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 15:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 08:52 |
|
|
I can only imagine how horrible we would be to each other if we could see our stripes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaschko%27s_lines
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2023 15:09
|
|
