Sivad wrote:Never said they weren't.
You actually did say that for indigenous people "It was never their land", and that indigenous people "should have made fair accommodation, but the natives never had the right to exclude anyone from coming here."
All I said was ownership claims aren't a valid reason for exclusion. Now if the natives excluded the settlers on the grounds that the settlers were violent ignorant chauvinists that if allowed in would ultimately kill most of the native people and put the survivors through hell for generations, that would be a rationally enlightened justification for exclusion.
At this point, we are far from my original point, which was that indigenous people still do not have their land back.
Now, since it turns out that white settlers were and are, by and large, "violent ignorant chauvinists that if allowed in would ultimately kill most of the native people and put the survivors through hell for generations", they are justified if they wish to exclude people from their lands, according to you.
And yet, they are not allowed to do so. They are not allowed control over their own land.
---------------
Saeko wrote:This does not even remotely support your claim. On the one hand, if the police officer actually is threatened, then he is justified in shooting a suspect. On the other hand, if he wasn't threatened, then this is not a successful application of existing laws.
If the goal is to keep police from being held accountable for racist violence, then it is very successful. But I mean that every step of the way, all legal professionals involved agreed that the law was followed.
With regard to Trump's comments and the casual racism we sometimes see on display, it should be noted that these people do not deny that racism is wrong. Instead, what we have is that they are denying that what they are doing or saying is racist. This, to me, makes no sense if racism is socially acceptable.
Part of the process for making racism acceptable is by denying that it is racism. One Degree is doing it in this very thread. This is so widespread that there is even a name for it: dog whistle politics.
Do you believe that western nations are engaged in ethnic cleansing against indigenous people today? If not, then how is this even remotely relevant to our discussion?
You also failed to answer whether or not the appropriation of white people's lands is indicative of racism against white people.
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.
This actually goes back to my original point: it never ended. Can you tell me when government action against indigenous people supposedly ended?
And I did answer your question. I pointed out that when governments enact eminent domain against white people, they are required to provide a rational basis for the appropriation. For example, a new road or installation of infrastructure. This basis shows that it is not racism.
What is the basis for the appropriation of indigenous lands, complete with the ethnic cleansings, and imprisoning them on reservations, etc.?
Right, but this contradicts your earlier point that the cover-up was caused by racism.
If that had been my point, you would have been correct here.
My point was that their actions (i.e. the cops who lied and covered up for the racist violent one) ended up supporting government racism.
I am neither misunderstanding nor strawmanning your argument. You have explicitly said that in judging whether this or that action is racist (or gives tacit support for racism), one needs only consider the outcome. Your positions are clearly inconsistent here.
If the outcome is all that counts, then the manslaughter of a person of color is indeed an act of racism.
Again, you have misunderstood. Now that I have explained that I did not argue that, you seem to be ignoring what I explicitly said in order to continue with this strawman.
What if Trump had named a prominent Neo-Nazi as a friend. Would that be indicative of tacit support for racism?
No, that would be
overt support of racism.
Where in your article does it say that anything like this happened?
In an initial investigation, the police service's professional standards branch determined there was insufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges against the police officers or a need for a disciplinary hearing.
But new evidence introduced by Engel prompted a review of the case that concluded there was enough evidence to warrant a disciplinary hearing.
Three witnesses provided statements and interviews after El Hallak put handwritten notes in his neighbours' mailboxes.
In his letter, Knecht offers a summary of those witness accounts.
One neighbour said he heard a person call someone the N-word outside his window. He said he saw El Hallak slowly jog down the sidewalk followed by the officers, one who shouted: "I'll shoot you motherf--ker. I'll taser you."
The neighbour said El Hallak dropped to the ground, saying " 'yes, officer, I'm not resisting. Please don't hurt me.' "
Edmonton police sergeant charged with obstruction of justice
Edmonton teen's complaint of excessive force, racial profiling under investigation
Another witness said she saw police put El Hallak in the back seat of the cruiser.
"The officer on the passenger side looked around and started to swing his right arm," wrote Knecht, summarizing her account. "The upper back end of the arm swung approximately three to five times. While this was happening she could hear [El Hallak] saying 'No — stop — you are hurting me.' The other police officer walked in front of the vehicle and did nothing."
The third witness was El Hallak's wife. Jasmine Flaig said she didn't realize it was her husband in the cruiser as she peered out a bedroom window, saw an officer standing by an open door and heard a man shout: "Stop, you are hurting me."
Please, then, define racism as well as what counts as tacit support for racism, and make sure to list the necessary and sufficient conditions for each.
Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity. Today, the use of the term "racism" does not easily fall under a single definition.[1]
The ideology underlying racist practices often includes the idea that humans can be subdivided into distinct groups that are different due to their social behavior and their innate capacities as well as the idea that they can be ranked as inferior or superior.[2] Historical examples of institutional racism include the Holocaust, the apartheid regime in South Africa, and slavery and segregation in the United States. Racism was also an aspect of the social organization of many colonial states and empires.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RacismOf course not, just that racism is far from the only plausible explanation here.
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/12/ ... iety-studyContrary to what some have suggested, white millennial Trump voters were not in more economically precarious situations than non-Trump voters. Fully 86 percent of them reported being employed, a rate similar to non-Trump voters; and they were 14 percent less likely to be low income than white voters who did not support Trump. Employment and income were not significantly related to that sense of white vulnerability.
So what was? Racial resentment.
Even when controlling for partisanship, ideology, region and a host of other factors, white millennials fit Michael Tesler’s analysis, explored here. As he put it, economic anxiety isn’t driving racial resentment; rather, racial resentment is driving economic anxiety. We found, as he has in a larger population, that racial resentment is the biggest predictor of white vulnerability among white millennials. Economic variables like education, income and employment made a negligible difference.
Progress ! 
- By ingliz
- By wat0n