Would whites re-institute slavery today if they could?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Would whites re-institute slavery today if they could?

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

This kind of thinking is a reflection of a strain of paranoia among a minority within the black community. It's not entirely paranoid or unjustified (whites did -- in fact -- enslave them), but it's still paranoid. Most white people would be appalled at the thought today.

Sharkie posted:

Angola Prison

It's a harrowing image and shows a practice I think should probably be abolished, but do you think voluntary convict labor is a form of slavery? Exploitation, yes. But slavery is a different thing. I sometimes see thinly-sourced articles about this which use the angle "modern-day slavery" which strikes me as acknowledging it's not the same thing. Convict labor has long existed even when slavery was around and is still considered constitutional -- although not when coerced.

# ¿ Jun 16, 2014 00:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 17:01

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Ogmius815 posted:

Except most whites are actually not appalled by the thought of making blacks subservient at all, sadly. Racism is still the most important constituent fact of this country. You can't begin to understand America without understanding racism. Just look how insane half the country has gone as a result of Obama's election. Those people aren't reacting to Obama as a politician; they're reacting to the fact that his election seemed (and mostly only seemed) to destabilize the established racial hierarchy.

Yeah that's certainly true in part but also partly non-falsifiable. A big chunk of them would have gone insane if Obama was white. Look at the stuff they regularly say about Hillary Clinton, for example. So how much of this insanity is exclusive to Obama and how much of it is not? Well, some of it clearly is. But it's difficult to tell and you also show that: "his election seemed," "mostly only seemed." So it appears that way, it seems that way, but how much of it is an appearance and how much of it is a fact? Again, some of it's a fact, other times it might just be an appearance.

Paul MaudDib posted:

It's not chattel slavery, but it's certainly slavery, or involuntary labor from which individuals/organizations derive profit, whatever name you would like to give that. And it's not a coincidence that there was a major uptick in this practice right after chattel slavery was abolished. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

SedanChair posted:

Uh, they make 20 cents an hour.

Are they forced to work? Are they bought and sold as property? Facts matter. You say it's involuntary labor. Are you sure?

# ¿ Jun 16, 2014 01:02

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Pantsuit posted:

Calling Obama a spearchucker has nothing to do with his race. The birther movement has nothing to do with Obama's black ancestry, not at all.

Well, more directly African ancestry. You don't see the same conspiracy theories about Michelle Obama.

Of course yeah that's racist. But the other poster said this was half the country believing this. I don't think half the United States calls black people spearchuckers. This is a loud, angry minority.

# ¿ Jun 16, 2014 01:46

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

The last poll I saw on this reported 17% of registered voters believed Obama is Muslim. Oddly, a majority of that 17% were okay with it. Of course I saw another poll which found that a tiny minority of Americans believe Obama is the Antichrist, including some people who voted for him. Which means there's people who voted for (in their minds) the Antichrist.

Well, in any case I don't think you can really say with certainty that half the United States has intense hatred for the president because he's black. I think you all are reading too many unhinged right-wingers who are relatively few in number but are magnified by the internet and by the media.

# ¿ Jun 16, 2014 07:16

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Arkane posted:

So we've downgraded from "most" to "huge" and now "more than enough examples."

Next up on the list is "a few scattered examples over the years."

Them goal posts: they move so fast.

Well we live in a highly polarized political environment. For the right, everything Democrats do is further proof there's a communist-in-chief who is taking one step towards a New World Order. For the left, everything Republicans do is further proof of the brownshirt menace on the march, once again. It's Red Scare/Brown Scare. Sure there are a lot of crazies, but I think most Americans are pretty reasonable folks.

# ¿ Jun 16, 2014 07:21

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

SedanChair posted:

e: I do agree with you though, I don't think anywhere close to half of Americans hate Obama. A large number fear all blacks though, and though some of them would call Obama "one of the good ones" they will always believe his loyalty is first and foremost to blacks, because their loyalty is first and foremost to whites.

Yeah that's definitely true. I've met people who are more or less white nationalists.

VitalSigns posted:

You could mayyyyyyybe convince me that the incessant clamoring to impeach Obama no matter what he does isn't racist...like, if I were really high, I might nod along and go "yeah they did impeach Clinton over a blowjob so sure maybe Republicans are just huge tantrum-throwing babies no matter the color of a Democratic President." I mean, okay.

But you will never, ever convince me that birtherism isn't racist, because that's pure stubborn, resolute refusal to accept him as a Real American based on nothing more than the color of his skin and his scary-sounding name. And considering there are elected, sitting members of Congress who yet refuse to admit Obama is the legitimate President, I'm going to have to say yeah, white people are still pretty racist.

Yeah I agree with your second graf. But the impeachment stuff sounds to me like politics as usual for fringy types.

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Jun 16, 2014

# ¿ Jun 16, 2014 07:28

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Instead of good or bad I'd say it's the difference between right and wrong. And there are some things that are wrong no matter what. Redefine racism to only mean what white people do, and I don't see where that gets you. Prejudice, racism, whatever you'd like to call it, is wrong no matter who does it.

# ¿ Jun 19, 2014 08:36

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

I agree, but I'm sort of resigned to it. And my feeling is that you have to be careful not to let it work you up. If people want to start a club with a "progressive stack" (i.e. a hierarchy flipped upside down) then they're free to do that. But why bother participating? So I don't. I remember this Occupy video from New York where the organizers announced this system and you see the looks on people's faces, like it kind of caught them by surprise. So peace out of there, and most people do.

I guess this goes back to the first post. The question was, basically: how do I argue with these people on Facebook? Okay, that's mistake number one.

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 09:02 on Jun 19, 2014

# ¿ Jun 19, 2014 08:59

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

natetimm posted:

I'm like the uber-troll because while I spend part of my time beating progressives over the head for this poo poo, in real life I spend time advancing progressive causes like gay rights, a living wage, and lecturing a few of my friends why saying "nigga" is still stupid if you're white.

Well, I think the most we can ask of people is to mind their own business and not be overtly rear end in a top hat-ish to others. I think if everyone did that then things would work out OK. So for gay rights, I think we should demand that people not oppose it (by actively opposing it, you're not minding your own business since you're screwing with my life), but I don't think we should demand that people actively support it. A quiet surrender is sufficient, in my view.

Some may say "silence = complicity." But if you're silent then it's difficult to tell who you are complicit with. In any case, I think a free society is one that protects both speech and the right not to speak. Free societies should not compel people to take part in political activities regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the activity. So if you have progressives doing stupid poo poo like the "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" stack politics, then you're under no obligation to participate in that. And you shouldn't let any left-wing activist try to guilt-trip you otherwise by saying that just reflects your privilege. You can't be accused of crowding out marginalized voices if you never show up.

# ¿ Jun 19, 2014 09:29

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

VitalSigns posted:

Why can we not even tell them that? How do we convince them to support equality if they think they bootstrapped themselves right from the womb into a four-year university?

I think your mistake is making this about what people think and their feelings. But the vast, vast majority of people in the United States do not have the time or energy to be thinking about this stuff all the time. And trying to convince adults to change their minds about anything is the least productive of all possible endeavors. You may as well start praying to Jehovah. This is also why successful activist campaigns tend to focus on building alliances, networks and resources towards the deployment of political power to affect structural conditions, rather than educating the masses into seeing it their way. For example, I would find it very dubious any suggestion the gay rights movement succeeded by reasoning people out of their homophobia and having them check their heterosexual privilege. It succeeded despite that by creating an environment for people to reason themselves out of it.

I just don't see where the privilege-checking gets you. It has its uses in graduate-level sociology and cultural anthropology, but the average American is more exposed to the ESPN comment sections than any of that. This is also why I think -- and judging from my anecdotal moments encountering people who constantly check their privilege and the people around them -- that it's largely a form of social competition among incestuous uber-left peer groups.

natetimm posted:

Human beings love to comisserate and attempt to identify with the plight of others, even if it's done in an insensitive manner. If someone is saying they totally understand your pain or struggle because of their stupid white people problems yes it's annoying, but the bigger, more important issue is that they are trying to internalize and personalize your struggle to identify with it and support it. They don't have to be a lock-step idealist in your army for that to happen.

I remember when people jumped on Macklemore for saying he identified with the gay rights cause because he was mistaken for being gay (or something) when he was in high school. How dare he equate his struggle with ours! But hey, at least the dude is trying, you know? We live in a messy, complicated, multilingual, multi-religious, multicultural, multiethnic nation of 300 million. If people are going to learn how to deal with those around them, they're going to learn by doing it in messy and complicated ways, and they don't need hectoring schoolmarms to teach them how. Being lectured like that is viscerally repulsive to most people.

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Jun 20, 2014

# ¿ Jun 20, 2014 04:34

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

natetimm posted:

Because the culture that has grown up around these online movements is a toxic cabal of back-patters and self-aggrandizers for whom the actual pursuit of justice or meaningful change takes a backseat to making themselves feel superior over others. There's nothing of merit being produced by them, it's a giant echo chamber of petty bullies blogging and reblogging each others' narcissistic bullshit.

As an aside, I think Tumblr is perfect for this because the platform is scientifically designed to keep people from leaving Tumblr. The developers intentionally made it very difficult to navigate off the site to another. It's an echo-chamber machine and checking the most privilege and taking the most umbrage means you'll get reblogged more, get more followers, and otherwise stand out more from the noise.

# ¿ Jun 20, 2014 04:50

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

VitalSigns posted:

Well if minorities are going to agitate for their rights, they're going to do it in messy, complicated ways, and they don't need hectoring schoolmarms policing their tone.

Oh wait no, I forgot, the onus is always on minorities to be sensitive and meekly ask for their rights without ever implying that it might be wrong for a white person to withold them. We mustn't put any onus on the people enabling oppression to recognize what is happening and stop contributing to it.

Your beef is with natetimm here. I already had my piece on this argument. People can say whatever they want, I don't care.

VitalSigns posted:

Ah yes, I remember how the Gay Rights movement began when LGBT people created a supportive environment for homophobes to reason themselves out of their bigotry, just as straight white people have always done when minorities kept a respectful silence and didn't confront anyone about the injustice of the status quo.

Whoa dude, don't be so pugnacious, you're setting back the movement! Create that supportive environment to win those cops over!

You're totally going off the rails. The gay movement didn't succeed by creating a supporting environment for homophobes. It didn't care what homophobes thought. But it didn't try to get homophobes to check their hetero privilege. Nobody cared if the cops checked their cop privilege.

You're making a fundamental mistake that the checking your privilege thing is against homophobes, committed racists, and so on. That's just not how it works. The main people who get attacked over their privilege are other people on the progressive left. Nobody bothers to call out Bill O'Reilly on his privilege. It's other activists in a self-destructive firing squad, mainly.

# ¿ Jun 20, 2014 05:03

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

VitalSigns posted:

I was responding to someone who was talking about the actual, real LGBT rights movement, (something that definitely wasn't slactivism), and characterizing its success as coming from giving straight people space to reason themselves out of homophobia. Of course, straight people had decades and decades and centuries of space to do this yet somehow mysteriously it only happened once gay people started fighting back.

My point being that the gay movement fought for real political change. We changed society, and that created a space for straight people to reason themselves out of their own homophobia. If you take someone like Frank Kameny (who set the groundwork for Stonewall), he wasn't about silencing homophobes or trying to get them to check their privilege. He was "I'm right and you're wrong, and I'll take you to the courts and prove it."

# ¿ Jun 20, 2014 05:30

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Who What Now posted:

Only if you eat what you kill. Hunt whitey responsibly.

The most dangerous game.

# ¿ Jun 20, 2014 13:07

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

If racism is defined as systemic race-based discrimination, then you need to reorder society to where that no longer exists. You'd end the war on drugs, you'd expand the health care system to serve the black population that is chronically underserved by it. You'd expand child care services to black parents. You might even have a reparations program. You'd do a lot of stuff. You'd eliminate disparities in income and employment. You'd drastically reform how we incarcerate people. You'd remove employment discrimination against workers with felony records. All of which serves as a machine for reproducing racial disparities. And then once the society eliminates racism -- over a period of many decades -- it wouldn't matter if a white person like Paula Deen says something anti-black, because her words wouldn't be backed up by anything. Her words would have as much power behind them as anti-white comments do today. She wouldn't be able to really hurt anyone.

But if that's the case, then it doesn't really matter what Paula Deen thinks about anything. It doesn't really matter what's in her heart because that's not where the problem is. The suggestion that we "seek it out [racism] every minute of every day and expose every instance we find" isn't going to change the fundamental structure of society. What you'd get is a kind of permanent state of witchhunting and denunciation on the left with growing bitterness and evasion on the right. What you'd get is the status quo.

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 09:27 on Jun 26, 2014

# ¿ Jun 26, 2014 07:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 17:01

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

VitalSigns posted:

How do you do this when people are racist and vote for racist politicians who want to preserve systemic race-based discrimination?

Apparently convincing people is out because that will just make the left shrill and the right bitter and stubborn, so we...?
...?

Well I think you need to look at specific policies and institutions that service black communities. Is the success or failure of the Harlem Children's Zone for example contingent on the feelings of white people? Is it possible to change white people's feelings and make them all aware that racism is everywhere to the extent that they will no longer be blind to it? (Granting that the underlying assumption is true.) I'm not convinced the answer to either question is yes. (Especially considering one of the SJW arguments is that white people are kind of incapable at recognizing racism anyways due to their whiteness.)

It also might be that black people in America can thrive despite the feelings of whites, and that while trying to educate the white populace is admirable, it's probably not going to work. It might be that a better use of time and political capital could be spent on organizing to make concrete improvements in people's lives, which would also entail building alliances and not really caring so much what Bubba thinks since he would be defeated politically if this strategy proves successful - and there are historical examples where it did.

But going back to this for a second:

quote:

"That�s why the best way to combat racism in the face of selective attention and situational racism is to seek it out every minute of every day and expose every instance we find. And not just racism, but also sexism, homophobia and every other kind of injustice that lessens the principles of inclusion that define this country."

You know, I'm gay and the idea of sniffing out and exposing homophobia absolutely every minute of every day sounds exhausting to me, and I think I would drive myself crazy doing that. If you're constantly obsessing over what Paula Deen or the Duck Dynasty people just said -- if you spend every minute of every hour and 365 days a year obsessing over what other people think about you -- you will give these people way too much space inside your own head.

If you're always worrying about what other people think or possibly think, you'll get yourself to the point where you won't even be able to go outside without having a panic attack, you know? (As the most extreme Tumblr types do actually.) I mean, do we really need to be on guard all the time against -- as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar argues -- the likes of Paula Deen, Cliven Bundy and Don Imus? Are these the real foes standing in the way of progress today? I'm inclined more to believe that these people are creations of a media-outrage machine and 24/7 news cycle that is taking us all for a collective ride. Why should we care what any of these bullshit celebrities think anyways? You know we have a black incarceration rate six times higher than the national average, but don't let that get in the way of focusing your efforts on demanding Gary Oldman apologize for gasbag comments to Playboy.

I just don't think that's a constructive use of anyone's time. And true, I'm not black and can't speak about what it's like to be black and so forth. But there are a lot of black people who write and say similar things about race as to what I'm saying about homophobia and about race. Not every member of all the minorities think the same things.

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Jun 27, 2014

# ¿ Jun 27, 2014 18:46

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Would whites re-institute slavery today if they could?