[Pants-of-dog]

For one, I do not think of it as a victim narrative: it is stating what is happening. We really shouldn't complain about it because it is exactly what has happened in every single system that has ever existed. Moreover, we s houldn't complain at all: that sort of thing is about to reach its end in the next couple decades. Liberalism cannot stand up against the science that is bubbling to the top.

Secondly, why does someone need "evidence" for such a claim, and what would such "evidence" even look like? You're basically asking me to come up with some measurement for how much state capture the Left has done... I guess I could point out that being branded a racist, whehter true or not, is a total kiss of death, and I could point out how entire departments at Universities have been designed to "educate" people by promoting homosexuality, anti-God agendas, "African studies," etc., that are all fronts for social liberalism, and that htey have even instituted hiring policies designed to bolster leftist activist academics...

But... You'd simply spin it all and say that this is just the natural change in society and that these institutions are simply beginning to reflect society, and argue that they have no tplayed a radical role in changing it.

So why not skip that part?

I present a statement that is pretty obvious and the counter arguments against it are obvious, too, so feel free to proceed to whatever stage of discussion you would like.

You have no evidence.

I am dismissing your argument because it is unsupported.

It is simply a victim narrative where you pose as the poor oppressed conservative and the “liberals” have taken over everything in a conspiracy.

That's not exactly an accurate statement of the beliefs that every person had on race,

They are facts.

nor is it even true that Natives were "shot on sight" or some such.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act

You are from the USA, right? Here is a chance to learn some of your history. Specifically, ethnic cleansing.

They were often traded with and treaties were set up. The story of the settlement of the West is actually really boring and involves lots of one off episodes that resulted in explosions in violence that would literally last for three to six months quickly followed by decades of peace (or even permanent peace via assimilation of the Natives into the American way of life, at last).

200 years ago, the Seminole wars were going on.

The last two hundred years also involves the story of whites fighting to end slavery in a variety of ways.

But what you are grabbing at here is literal historic events, and what I was asking for is classic perception of what race is.

So, what do you think a classic perception of race was?

That whites were awesome and better than everyone else and deserved to have the land and labour of other races for free.

Please note that this has not ended.

[Verv]

There were instances where wars and other events occurred which allowed for the 'shoot on sight' mentality, but these are all things that would have to be talked about individually. You can't paint history with this wide of a brush.

It is simply a victim narrative where you pose as the poor oppressed conservative and the “liberals” have taken over everything in a conspiracy.

It's not a conspiracy, though.

The liberals try to win every election, right?

The liberals try to control the agenda in schools because they believe that this is simply teaching the truth, correct?

Liberals try to get good press and to control narratives to further their agenda with the electorate, correct?

None of that is a secret. You are just failing to see the obvious.

And we aren't victims: we are just losing because we are less influential.

But back to the original concept that you are avoiding:

What do you think a classical concept of race would be?

[Pants-of-dog]

There were instances where wars and other events occurred which allowed for the 'shoot on sight' mentality, but these are all things that would have to be talked about individually. You can't paint history with this wide of a brush.

Feel free to provide evidence.

The evidence, so far, shows that we were ethnically cleansing all land east of the Mississippi.

It's not a conspiracy, though.

The liberals try to win every election, right?

The liberals try to control the agenda in schools because they believe that this is simply teaching the truth, correct?

Liberals try to get good press and to control narratives to further their agenda with the electorate, correct?

None of that is a secret. You are just failing to see the obvious.

And we aren't victims: we are just losing because we are less influential.

So it is not that you are being oppressed. It is that you are losing the cultural war. Sure. I will ignore this from now on.

But back to the original concept that you are avoiding:

What do you think a classical concept of race would be?

That whites were awesome and better than everyone else and deserved to have the land and labour of other races for free.

Please note that this has not ended.

[Saeko]

So you do not believe that the police and judges can say they followed the law, and simultaneously have supported or been racist in their acts?

If a cop shoots a black man for racist reasons, and the judge lets the cop off because the cop says he feared for his life, then this is an example of the law being followed, and racism being perpetuated,

It is definitely possible that racism can be perpetuated while the laws are followed, but that does not mean that the laws themselves are racist. Similarly, it is possible for a doctor to commit murder by following all established medical procedures and norms, but that doesn't mean that those norms and procedures are designed to murder patients.

That is not logical. Dog whistle terminology is used to make racism socially acceptable by communicating racism to people who find it socially acceptable, while trying to avoid criticism from those who are opposed to racism.

Yes, and they need to do this because racism is not socially acceptable in mainstream society. If the existence of dog-whistle terminology proves, as you seem to be saying, that racism is socially acceptable, then it logically follows (by contraposition) that in a society in which racism is not socially acceptable, dog-whistle terminology wouldn't exist. Which is absolutely false. A society in which racism is not acceptable is precisely the kind of society where one would expect to see dog-whistle terminology. A society in which racism is acceptable would just have open racism.

Yes, western nations are currently engaged in ethnic cleansing of indigenous people. They do this through a variety of methods. Taking children from families, making indigenous cultural practices illegal, seizing land, etc.

You should look up “residential school system”.

Denial of this does not magically mean that it is not happening.

Merely re-iterating your claims does not constitute evidence of anything. I asked you to prove that Western governments are deliberately killing indigenous people in order to establish ethnic homogeneity in an area today. Nothing you've posted even remotely supports this claim.

So there is no date when ethnic cleansing of indigenous people ended.

There is no precise date on which feudalism ended either.

Indigenous people still exist because they are resilient. This argument of yours is equal to denying Nazis tried to kill all the Jews in Europe becuase European Jews still exist.

The two are not equivalent. Millions of Jews indeed ceased to exist during the holocaust. Where is your evidence that similar numbers of indigenous people were murdered at any time in the past 50 years?

For the third time, what is this supposed basis?

Who cares? As I said it could be just about any mundane thing from building roads and airports to pipelines or theme parks or whatever. Like, why does this even matter?

Please note that you have completely ignored my point about social impact.

If you ignore key points in the arguments, then you are not addressing my actual argument.

Because it's irrelevant. However much greater the social impact of the President naming a prominent Neo-Nazi as a friend may be, the social impact of saving his life is far greater. Yet you said that the doctor's actions were not supportive of racism at all.

I don’t know what to say to this.

The article is clearly written and shows that the man who was attacked by the police for being a brown Muslim had to go get eyewitness testimony that contradicted the police statements, and had to get this information to the prosecutor because the police chose not to.

No, your claim is still vague. Let me try it this way:

With regard to the prosecutor, what is is his name and who is the defendant in the case that he is prosecuting? Is it the Muslim man? Is it the police? I still have no clue who this prosecutor is, and none of your responses pointed him out.

Feel free to provide evidence for your claim that Trump did not use racial resentment as a way of boosting his popularity.

Here are more studies confirming the survey already mentioned:
http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/schaff ... erence.pdf
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10. ... 0216677304
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10 ... 8017737411

From that first article:

To measure racism, we use three items that capture the extent to which an individual acknowledges and empathizes with racism. These items are related first and foremost to the concept of color-blind racial attitudes. As Neville et al. (2000, p. 60) explain, “color-blind racial attitudes refers to the belief that race should not and does not matter.”People who hold such attitudes essentially do not acknowledge the existence of racism in the United States. Thus, the two items we use from the CoBRAS scale developed by Neville et al. are:

1.White people in the U.S. have certain advantages because of the color of their skin.
2.Racial problems in the U.S. are rare, isolated situations.

As DeSante and Smith (2016) note, the CoBRAS items are useful at tapping the cognitive awareness or acknowledgement of racism in America, but additional items are needed to measure the extent to which people feel empathetic about the costs of racism. Thus, based on the advice offered by DeSante and Smith, we add an additional item from the Psycho-social Costs of Racism to Whites (PCRW) battery (Spanierman and Heppner 2004,Spanierman, et al. 2006, Poteat and Spanierman 2008):

3.I am angry that racism exists.

So they defined racism as disagreeing with a certain leftist ideology? Uh-huh. Please don't waste my time with this sort of dishonest bullshit again. In the future, provide relevant quotations to the part of the article that demonstrates your point.

With regard to the other two articles, neither establish that racism is socially acceptable nor that racism caused Trump's victory. The most that they prove is that racist people still exist and that they tended to vote for Trump. Trump's election was nothing remarkable. He lost the popular vote, and the number of votes he did receive was in no way unusual for a Republican candidate.

[Sivad]

The evidence, so far, shows that we were ethnically cleansing all land east of the Mississippi.

"we" were not doing any such thing. That happened 150 years ago.

[One Degree]

"we" were not doing any such thing. That happened 150 years ago.

His post is also a lie. Using terms like ‘ethnic cleansing’ and ‘genocide’ intentionally distort the truth. The ‘Indian Wars’ had a death rate of 2 to 1. This is not even close to what these terms suggest. Death by disease is used as proof of genocide. This is ridiculous as there is no proof early settlers used germ warfare. They did not have the knowledge.

The argument also is misleading because most of the death from disease happened before encroachment on Indian lands. The disease was spread by the first explorers, not invading armies.

[Pants-of-dog]

It is definitely possible that racism can be perpetuated while the laws are followed, but that does not mean that the laws themselves are racist. Similarly, it is possible for a doctor to commit murder by following all established medical procedures and norms, but that doesn't mean that those norms and procedures are designed to murder patients.

Yes, and I claimed that racism can be perpetuated while the laws are followed, andI also said that does not mean that the laws themselves are racist. They are simply implemented in such a way that racism is the social impact. I can think of many other examples that have this same dynamic, such as Voter ID laws.

Yes, and they need to do this because racism is not socially acceptable in mainstream society. If the existence of dog-whistle terminology proves, as you seem to be saying, that racism is socially acceptable, then it logically follows (by contraposition) that in a society in which racism is not socially acceptable, dog-whistle terminology wouldn't exist. Which is absolutely false. A society in which racism is not acceptable is precisely the kind of society where one would expect to see dog-whistle terminology. A society in which racism is acceptable would just have open racism.

Dog whistle terminology is used to make racism socially acceptable by communicating racism to people who find it socially acceptable, while trying to avoid criticism from those who are opposed to racism.

Obviously, racism is socially acceptable to a large percentage of the population. This is true even if it is not acceptable for another large percentage of the population.

Merely re-iterating your claims does not constitute evidence of anything. I asked you to prove that Western governments are deliberately killing indigenous people in order to establish ethnic homogeneity in an area today. Nothing you've posted even remotely supports this claim.

Yes, I listed the residnetial school system.

Here in Canada, we underfund indigenous communities so that they have no hospitals or schools, then we use that as an excuse to take their children away. This then allows us to have indigenous kids raised by white people, which in turn disrupts the passing on of culture.

This is literally cultural genocide.

There is no precise date on which feudalism ended either.

But we can point to indicators that feudalism ended, such as global capitalism. Do you have any indicators that racism ended?

The two are not equivalent. Millions of Jews indeed ceased to exist during the holocaust. Where is your evidence that similar numbers of indigenous people were murdered at any time in the past 50 years?

As I said, please look up “residential school system”.

Let me know when you get to the mass graves and medical experiments without consent.

Who cares? As I said it could be just about any mundane thing from building roads and airports to pipelines or theme parks or whatever. Like, why does this even matter?

So you have no argument as to why taking land from indigenous people is not racist. Got it.

Because it's irrelevant. However much greater the social impact of the President naming a prominent Neo-Nazi as a friend may be, the social impact of saving his life is far greater. Yet you said that the doctor's actions were not supportive of racism at all.

No, the social impact of saving a nazi’s life may be completely insignificant. Police support of racism is not.

No, your claim is still vague. Let me try it this way:

With regard to the prosecutor, what is is his name and who is the defendant in the case that he is prosecuting? Is it the Muslim man? Is it the police? I still have no clue who this prosecutor is, and none of your responses pointed him out.

Yes, the defendant is the Muslim man. He is, after all, the ine being charged with a crime.

From that first article:

So they defined racism as disagreeing with a certain leftist ideology? Uh-huh. Please don't waste my time with this sort of dishonest bullshit again. In the future, provide relevant quotations to the part of the article that demonstrates your point.

With regard to the other two articles, neither establish that racism is socially acceptable nor that racism caused Trump's victory. The most that they prove is that racist people still exist and that they tended to vote for Trump. Trump's election was nothing remarkable. He lost the popular vote, and the number of votes he did receive was in no way unusual for a Republican candidate.

So four different studies show that Trump used racism to boost his power, but you dismiss them all because you feel they are leftist.

———————————

"we" were not doing any such thing. That happened 150 years ago.

Yes, it is a response to a question about racism 200 years ago.

But please, when did we stop ethnically cleansing NA of indigenous people?

——————————

His post is also a lie. Using terms like ‘ethnic cleansing’ and ‘genocide’ intentionally distort the truth. The ‘Indian Wars’ had a death rate of 2 to 1. This is not even close to what these terms suggest. Death by disease is used as proof of genocide. This is ridiculous as there is no proof early settlers used germ warfare. They did not have the knowledge.

The argument also is misleading because most of the death from disease happened before encroachment on Indian lands. The disease was spread by the first explorers, not invading armies.

Calling me a liar is not an argument.

The Indian Wars are not what I was discussing. I was discussing the view of indigenous people 200 years ago.

200 years ago, the Trail of Tears happened.

[One Degree]

@Pants-of-dog
I did not call you a liar. I called your post a lie. I understand individuals accepting lies without knowing they are lies.

[Pants-of-dog]

You said I “intentionally distort the truth”.

Anyway, your usual attacks on character are not relevant. Just amusing, considering how often you act offended when you perceive a slight.

Do you have anything to say about the actual topic?

[One Degree]

You said I “intentionally distort the truth”.

Anyway, your usual attacks on character are not relevant. Just amusing, considering how often you act offended when you perceive a slight.

Do you have anything to say about the actual topic?

Yes, you do. You excuse it as an exercise in logic. Any view you don’t like is dismissed as ‘irrelevant’ or ‘feelings’ while you argue based upon your assumed ‘feelings’ of the indigenous. Just like Southerners, they were overcome and must adhere to the rules of the winners. You believe all Southern sympathies should be harshly stomped out while the indigenous should be elevated. It is totally illogical and based solely upon your emotional attachment to a vague concept of morality.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, you do. You excuse it as an exercise in logic. Any view you don’t like is dismissed as ‘irrelevant’ or ‘feelings’ while you argue based upon your assumed ‘feelings’ of the indigenous. Just like Southerners, they were overcome and must adhere to the rules of the winners. You believe all Southern sympathies should be harshly stomped out while the indigenous should be elevated. It is totally illogical and based solely upon your emotional attachment to a vague concept of morality.

Yes, we are back to the personal attacks that are not an argument.

....and this is why I often ignore you.

[One Degree]

Yes, we are back to the personal attacks that are not an argument.

....and this is why I often ignore you.

The personal evaluation is not personal, but simply used to demonstrate the illogic of your arguments. Your feelings effect your logic just as much as everyone else. Your logic is illogical due to your feelings.
How else do you explain your different views of indigenous and Southerners? They both suffered the same fate.

[Pants-of-dog]

They did not suffer the same fate.

[One Degree]

They did not suffer the same fate.

The exact same people are hailed as heroes for destroying the South and as devils incarnate for fighting Indians. People today hold both views without even realizing they are the same people. Just incompatible fantasies people choose to believe.

[Pants-of-dog]

Please show evidence that Southerners were forcibly relocated and had their land taken from them.

[One Degree]

Please show evidence that Southerners were forcibly relocated and had their land taken from them.

I am surprised you are that ignorant of American history. I suppose the term ‘carpetbagger’ is also new to you.
I suppose you are unaware of the West being settled by Southerners forced from their land. Oh well, I don’t intend to use this thread to instruct you in basic history.

[Zamuel]

I am surprised you are that ignorant of American history.
I suppose you are unaware of the West being settled by Southerners forced from their land.

There you go again ... To many movies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty_acres_and_a_mule
Some land redistribution occurred under military jurisdiction during the war and for a brief period thereafter. However, federal and state policy during the Reconstruction era emphasized wage labor, not land ownership, for blacks. Almost all land allocated during the war was restored to its pre-war owners.

Those westward bound southerners were either tenants (not landowners) or destitute (without $$$ to restore their property to productivity). Few if any ex-slaves ever got their "40 acres and a mule."

It's history bub, look it up and read about it.

Zam

[One Degree]

There you go again ... To many movies.

Those westward bound southerners were either tenants (not landowners) or destitute (without $$$ to restore their property to productivity). Few if any ex-slaves ever got their "40 acres and a mule."

It's history bub, look it up and read about it.

Zam

What does slavery have to do with this? I allowed Pod to be evasive with this line of thought just briefly. I was going back to my point he ignored. The same people are considered good or evil today based upon who they were killing and taking land from. These are the exact same people. Unless you can show otherwise, this proves today’s views are simply incompatible fantasies thrown around based upon political beliefs. The wars overlapped. The same military used the same weapons to attack different people. How does this fit with the current liberal fantasy that allows the destruction of everything Southern and wants things returned to the Indians. It is idealism without a basis in reality.

[Pants-of-dog]

So we see that Southerners and indigenous people had very different experiences in terms of losing land and being forcibly relocated.

[Zamuel]

So we see that Southerners and indigenous people had very different experiences in terms of losing land and being forcibly relocated.

Native Americans ? Yeah ... they were considered a nuisance, not a population. It's an interesting hypocrisy on the part of devoted abolitionist. -But- there were notable exceptions.

Zam