Is It Okay To Be White? - Page 26 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Is It Okay To Be White?

1. Yes, It Is Okay To Be White.
41
64%
2. No, It Is Not Okay To Be White.
11
17%
3. Other
12
19%
#14865405
:lol: If your "God" hadn't made mistakes, he wouldn't have had to cause a Flood, send his "son" down to fix things, or blow up cities like Soddom and Gammorah. So your "God" isn't perfect, either.
#14865474
I have a question about white privilege.

Is it equally shared among whites? It is obvious that the white privilege theories perceive English, Americans and Australians as having a white privilege. However, do Danes, Germans or Swedes have white privilege? And going further east do Poles, Finns, Lithuanians and even Russians have it? Lets go furher, wjat about blonde haired blue eyed Tatar Muslims? Or is it a sort of white privilege and then increasing degrees of white privilege based on the internal hierachy of whiteness?
#14865483
Political Interest wrote:I have a question about white privilege.

Is it equally shared among whites?


No. Since privilege is culturally specific, whites from one culture will have different white privilege from whites in another culture.
#14865487
I noticed one thing about white privilege in figure skating. The program components score (PCS) awards points to artistry aside from technical aspects and Russian skaters consistently score better than Asian skaters who need to make up for their shortcomings by performing difficult jumps. This is primarily because figure skating is a Nordic sport invented by Europeans and Asians are culturally disadvantaged as outsiders as most judges are also Europeans. But the same thing could be said about Russian judokas, who have been among the top medalists at the Rio Olympics despite being culturally disadvantaged to the Japanese, who invented judo and still control technical aspects of the sport. I think white privilege is a cultural advantage primarily enjoyed by Anglo-Saxons in former British colonies or the Anglosphere because the British invented the whole system controlling these countries.
Last edited by ThirdTerm on 24 Nov 2017 21:08, edited 1 time in total.
#14865488
Political Interest wrote:Thank you very much for acknowledging this. I always agreed that institutional discrimination exists in Western countries. You have now made the distinction that I have long hoped the cultural left would make.


This is indeed a very critical point. People having a lot of socioeconomic clout outweighs a lot of other things. The problems though are about everything becomes what I call, "Colorism". And it is too simplistic by far PI.

American society in the USA is stuck on colorism and bullshit. There are very wealthy and powerful African American capitalists, and investors, CEO's and a chunk of African Americans in the USA are professionals, with engineering degrees, medical degrees, law degrees and live in gated communities and their kids go to good schools, etc. The issue is about what the poor African Americans in large numbers go through and why they could not become socially mobile in the USA society. What is holding them back from economic and social success? After all, if some AA's made it in the system then why can't all make it in the system. But one has to analyze why the vast majority of poor people in the USA are white and the white elite are not running around discussing why so many white people fail to become rich or successful in this system either?

I think being balanced and looking for real answers about economic structures are the answer. Not colorism. But color and race and bank account growth and assets are all so intimately interrelated in the USA's history and society it is very hard to separate them. But they need to start analyzing things with an objective and scientific perspective.
#14865509
Potemkin wrote:Indeed, but they were never in the numbers that were imported to the American colonies by the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and they were never actually slaves in Britain. They simply merged into the native white proletariat. Britain has never had the same problems with racism that America has, because of our different histories. And yes, you're basically right to point to class privilege as the essential problem here. It's just that in America that class privilege has historically taken on racist overtones, and the white ruling elite used racism to induce the poor whites to identify themselves with the elite against the black minority, thereby defusing potential class conflict. This mystification has re-emerged in recent years as the concept of 'white privilege', though ironically in an inverted form. Lol.

I'm not sure I agree that immigrants in Europe and Britain merged with the native working class. As far as identification goes, both sides viewed themselves as distinct, otherwise we wouldn't have needed to start a debate about multiculturalism after those immigration waves and the left wouldn't historically have been so opposed to immigration. You are obviously right that there are differences for historical reasons, but these are just variations of the same underlying concept: historical injustices and oppression that we have to repent for: slavery in America, colonialism in Britain and national socialism in Germany. It seems obvious to me that this movement is now for the most part independent of the underlying causes. Why else would a country like Sweden engage in the same types of behaviours as Germany?

I agree with you that we are dealing with inverted forms of historical relationships: anti-racism, anti-colonialism, anti-nationalism, etc. The categories that were established in the past are more important than ever. And again, the same is true for other types of relationships. What is "the patriarchy" other than the equivalent of white privilege with respect to gender relations? It's all the same and it can be summarised as identity politics which is the basis on which pretty much every western country is operating today. White privilege is not special or distinct in any significant way.

Potemkin wrote:I'm inclided to agree with you about Godstud's list - it actually tends to trivialise the real suffering endured by racial minorities in America under slavery and then Jim Crow, and the discrimination they still face even to this day, not to mention the vicious racism of the apartheid regimes in South Africa and Rhodesia under white minority rule. Now that was 'white privilege'.

Yes and note that all of these lie in the past. There's nothing comparable in the western world today which, in my estimation, should actually matter. Yet, we are supposed to believe that there is some obscure, vague and all-encompassing legacy of these that is operating in the west today which is just as horrible and causes just as much suffering. That's nonsense, plain and simple.
#14865520
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I'm not sure I agree that immigrants in Europe and Britain merged with the native working class. As far as identification goes, both sides viewed themselves as distinct, otherwise we wouldn't have needed to start a debate about multiculturalism after those immigration waves and the left wouldn't historically have been so opposed to immigration. You are obviously right that there are differences for historical reasons, but these are just variations of the same underlying concept: historical injustices and oppression that we have to repent for: slavery in America, colonialism in Britain and national socialism in Germany. It seems obvious to me that this movement is now for the most part independent of the underlying causes. Why else would a country like Sweden engage in the same types of behaviours as Germany?


No one is asking anyone to repent of anything.

Instead, people are just being asked to recognise how these historical injustices have affected society and how they still affect society.

In doing so, we can hopefully move towards a more egalitarian future.

I agree with you that we are dealing with inverted forms of historical relationships: anti-racism, anti-colonialism, anti-nationalism, etc. The categories that were established in the past are more important than ever. And again, the same is true for other types of relationships. What is "the patriarchy" other than the equivalent of white privilege with respect to gender relations? It's all the same and it can be summarised as identity politics which is the basis on which pretty much every western country is operating today. White privilege is not special or distinct in any significant way.


This is correct. It is not special or distinct. At times, it may have a more significant impact than other forms of bigotry or privilege, but this is true of all forms of bigotry and privilege.

Yes and note that all of these lie in the past. There's nothing comparable in the western world today which, in my estimation, should actually matter. Yet, we are supposed to believe that there is some obscure, vague and all-encompassing legacy of these that is operating in the west today which is just as horrible and causes just as much suffering. That's nonsense, plain and simple.


I think we need to distinguish between discrimination and privilege. Discrimiis something so overt that it is universally recognized, e.g. lynching, pogroms, apartheid, etc. Privilege is far subtler and is not necessarily noticed by those who are not directly affected by it.

Also, overt discrimination is still going on in the western world in many places.
#14865530
I'm not sure I agree that immigrants in Europe and Britain merged with the native working class. As far as identification goes, both sides viewed themselves as distinct, otherwise we wouldn't have needed to start a debate about multiculturalism after those immigration waves and the left wouldn't historically have been so opposed to immigration. You are obviously right that there are differences for historical reasons, but these are just variations of the same underlying concept: historical injustices and oppression that we have to repent for: slavery in America, colonialism in Britain and national socialism in Germany. It seems obvious to me that this movement is now for the most part independent of the underlying causes. Why else would a country like Sweden engage in the same types of behaviours as Germany?

'Repent' is the wrong word; 'acknowledge' would be a better word.

I agree with you that we are dealing with inverted forms of historical relationships: anti-racism, anti-colonialism, anti-nationalism, etc. The categories that were established in the past are more important than ever. And again, the same is true for other types of relationships. What is "the patriarchy" other than the equivalent of white privilege with respect to gender relations? It's all the same and it can be summarised as identity politics which is the basis on which pretty much every western country is operating today. White privilege is not special or distinct in any significant way.

Indeed. The past always returns, albeit in new forms. As Freud pointed out, the repressed always returns. Identity politics is merely an inverted form of discrimination and racism, yet its appearance was always inevitable. Every crime has its consequences.

Yes and note that all of these lie in the past. There's nothing comparable in the western world today which, in my estimation, should actually matter. Yet, we are supposed to believe that there is some obscure, vague and all-encompassing legacy of these that is operating in the west today which is just as horrible and causes just as much suffering. That's nonsense, plain and simple.

Is modern Western society better than it ever has been in the past, in terms of racism, and discrimination against all sorts of minority groups? Absolutely, yes. But a large part of that progress was gained by members of those racial and other minorities making white people feel uncomfortable about themselves. What we call our 'conscience' is actually a little, wriggling worm inside our brain. Every so often, someone or something makes it wriggle around inside our brain, and this makes us feel... uneasy. We don't like feeling uneasy. So to make that little worm stop wriggling, we either try to correct the injustice, or we try to silence the annoying people who are making our brain-worm wriggle about. The fact that so many people feel such visceral anger when asked the question, "Is it okay to be white?" suggests to me that the little worm inside their brain which they call their 'conscience' is starting to wriggle....
#14865534
Godstud wrote::lol: If your "God" hadn't made mistakes, he wouldn't have had to cause a Flood, send his "son" down to fix things, or blow up cities like Soddom and Gammorah. So your "God" isn't perfect, either.

God gave man the choice to be perfect, but man chose evil instead of good. So don't try to blame your faults on God. That will not work.
#14865540
Man never had choice, since God is omniscient and when he created man he knew what decisions they would already be making. That's what omniscient means.
#14865611
Godstud wrote:Man never had choice, since God is omniscient and when he created man he knew what decisions they would already be making. That's what omniscient means.

It is clear to me that man was given a choice to obey God or not. I do not see whether God was omniscient or not makes any difference. They still had the choice.
#14865612
If God made man, and was omniscient, then he pretty much knew man would fail to choose properly. Thsu god knew man would fail in the creation process, so god made man flawed, and when man didn't choose right, he punished them for the flaw he put in them.
#14865615
Godstud wrote:If God made man, and was omniscient, then he pretty much knew man would fail to choose properly. Thsu god knew man would fail in the creation process, so god made man flawed, and when man didn't choose right, he punished them for the flaw he put in them.

Well, I have never saw any proof of that in the Holy Bible. I don't know who told you that, but they probably lied to you. According to that theory, then God knew Lucifer would become Satan the enemy of both man and God. So if that theory is all true, then we should have confidence in what will happen at the end of the book as well as at the beginning. HalleluYah.
#14865616
So god is all powerful and can't handle a dipshit like Lucifer? Really? That indicates that he's NOT all-powerful.

You don't need to read something in a Bible for you to come to the conclusion that god isn't all-powerful.

He makes humans and then gets pissed off and kills them because they don't worship him? God's kind of a prick.
#14865623
Godstud wrote:So god is all powerful and can't handle a dipshit like Lucifer? Really? That indicates that he's NOT all-powerful.

You don't need to read something in a Bible for you to come to the conclusion that god isn't all-powerful.

He makes humans and then gets pissed off and kills them because they don't worship him? God's kind of a prick.

You did not read the back of the book, where Lucifer as Satan the devil and his demon angles are thrown into the Lake of Fire and Brimstone.

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
(Revelation 20:10 KJV)
#14865624
:lol: So god can't do it now because he can't(in which he is not all-powerful), or because he won't(in which case he's an asshole)?
#14865629
Godstud wrote::lol: So god can't do it now because he can't(in which he is not all-powerful), or because he won't(in which case he's an asshole)?

Apparently, God has a time and place for completion of his master plan.

Jesus replied, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by His own authority."
(Acts 1:7)
#14865630
He's got an excuse for laziness and inaction. Figures.
#14865633
Godstud wrote:He's got an excuse for laziness and inaction. Figures.

But Jesus answered them, “To this very day My Father is at His work, and I too am working.”
(John 5:17)
#14865634
:lol: Right, a god has to "work". How dumb is that?
  • 1
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28

I have no problem admitting that certain news outl[…]

Right Wing Marxism?

The German rural peasantry and small-holders of t[…]

The Deep Thinks of Hong Wu

What are you afraid of, exactly? It's really fun[…]

Trump and Russiagate

Their Russia spam has been a disaster, so they're[…]