[Pants-of-dog]

Because that right doesn't exist, people just made it up. In some circumstances there are sound reasons for exclusion, but there's no right to exclude. Rights are a fiction, they're not mind independent.

Things that are dependent on the mind are not necessarily fiction. Traffic laws, money, language, intent, and the scientific method are all mind dependent and not fictional. Community rights, like many of the other examples, are as real as they are respected.

Can you show that indigenous people had no sound reasons for exclusion? If not, then you would have to admit that it is possible that indigenous communities did have sound reasons.

Finally, even if they did not have sound reasons for exclusion and never had the right to exclude anyone, that does not change the fact that the current society does not treat indigenous governments or laws wth the same respect as white settler governments.

There was no point in history when the racism against indigenous people ended.

[Sivad]

Things that are dependent on the mind are not necessarily fiction. Traffic laws, money, language, intent, and the scientific method are all mind dependent and not fictional. Community rights, like many of the other examples, are as real as they are respected.

Many philosophers take all of the things you listed as fictions. It's known as anti-realism.

Can you show that indigenous people had no sound reasons for exclusion? If not, then you would have to admit that it is possible that indigenous communities did have sound reasons.

I already said there were sound reasons.

current society does not treat indigenous governments or laws wth the same respect as white settler governments.

Society doesn't treat anarchists or monarchists with the same respect either. That's statism, not racism.

[Pants-of-dog]

Many philosophers take all of the things you listed as fictions. It's known as anti-realism.

Well, they can believe what they want. That does not change the fact that right now, indigenous people no longer have the right to control who gets to live on their land.

I already said there were sound reasons.

Okay. So if they have sound reasons for excluding people and cannot, there must be some reason why.

Perhaps they are being oppressed by the government?

Society doesn't treat anarchists or monarchists with the same respect either. That's statism, not racism.

That only shows that the government also has other reasons to continue to oppress indigenous people. Which only means that racism has continued to this day because of capitalist and colonial interests. This is true and does not contradict my point. It only clarifies the reasons why racism has been continually supprted by the government, despite everyone convincing themselves that racism magically ended.

[Sivad]

Okay. So if they have sound reasons for excluding people and cannot, there must be some reason why.

A very simple reason - they don't have the power to do it.

Perhaps they are being oppressed by the government?

Everybody is oppressed by the government. That's what governments do.

That only shows that the government also has other reasons to continue to oppress indigenous people. Which only means that racism has continued to this day because of capitalist and colonial interests.

Now you're claiming capitalism is racist?

[Pants-of-dog]

A very simple reason - they don't have the power to do it.

Yes, funny how an entire race of people are systematically deprived of the same land ownership rights that the rest of us enjoy.

Everybody is oppressed by the government. That's what governments do.

Really? Do you think that Trump is just as oppressed as a dissident in Stalin’s USSR, or would you agree that there are different levels of being oppressed?

If so, do you think racism is one of these different ways of being oppressed?

Now you're claiming capitalism is racist?

I am claiming that capitalist states and capitalist societies will be racist when it is profitable for them, and they will continue this racism for as long as it is profitable.

This makes sense. If you are making more money by paying blacks or illegal Mexicans less (or not at all) for their labour, why would you support a movement to increase the wage for blacks and Latinos to the same level as white workers?

If you do not want the working class to unite as a common front and organise, keeping the working class divided along ethnic lines is profitable.

In the context of indigenous land ownership, a huge portion of the North American economy is based on settler claims to land and resources. The economic loss associated with actually respecting indigenous land claims on an equitable basis is so significant that the capitalist governments will never willingly concede an equal partnership. Besides, maintaining the status quo costs little, and has been quite effective in marginalisation of indigenous people and communities, which in turn guarantees continued economic control of North American land and resources.

[Sivad]

Yes, funny how an entire race of people are systematically deprived of the same land ownership rights that the rest of us enjoy.

What are you talking about? Natives can own land just like anyone else. I know natives who own land. Natives also have tribal sovereignty, which is a hell of a lot more than most groups could ever hope for.

[Pants-of-dog]

What are you talking about? Natives can own land just like anyone else. I know natives who own land.

No. Individual indigenous people can own land in the same way that settler individuals can own land: according to the laws and economies of settler laws.

This is different from the equality of two separate nations, where indigenous communities would be able to enforce their borders, laws, economies, etc. on their own lands, just like Canada or the US does.

You are thinking about individual equality within the settler system. I am discussing equality of the settler system and indigenous systems.

Until that equality is dealt with, there is racial inequality.

Natives also have tribal sovereignty, which is a hell of a lot more than most groups could ever hope for.

Yes, it is almost as if they are the actual owners of this place, and it is their ethnic homeland, and they are separate nations that have signed treaties with North American governments, while the same is not true for other groups in North America.

[Sivad]

This is different from the equality of two separate nations, where indigenous communities would be able to enforce their borders, laws, economies, etc. on their own lands, just like Canada or the US does.

So in your mind it's racist not to let groups form their own countries? By that logic all those white separatists who want to break off and start their own countries are also victims of racism.

they are the actual owners of this place

Like according to God or Cosmic Truth or something?

[Pants-of-dog]

So in your mind it's racist not to let groups form their own countries? By that logic all those white separatists who want to break off and start their own countries are also victims of racism.

If they owned the land within current history, and there are existing signed treaties showing the existence of these nations and that the US or Canadian governments have previously recognised them, and there have been ongoing land claims since before the formation of the modern NA countries, then sure, these white separatists can also claim to be victims of racism.

Like according to God or Cosmic Truth or something?

According to their own laws.

[Sivad]

If they owned the land within current history, and there are existing signed treaties showing the existence of these nations and that the US or Canadian governments have previously recognised them, and there have been ongoing land claims since before the formation of the modern NA countries, then sure, these white separatists can also claim to be victims of racism.

[Verv]

Just as fun of a thread concept: when did racism start?

"Racism" is largely an ideological tag applied to enemies of liberalism who embrace specific ethnic essentialist viewpoints more than it is some literal ideology.

[One Degree]

Racism is used to convince you to sacrifice your cultural values for the cultural values of others. It is often a smokescreen to hide reality. As long as people are confused by the conflation of race with culture, they can be manipulated into making decisions against their own well being. This conflation makes an honest discussion impossible about race or culture.

[Pants-of-dog]

So you have no argument and have failed to refute any of my claims.

————————-

Just as fun of a thread concept: when did racism start?

"Racism" is largely an ideological tag applied to enemies of liberalism who embrace specific ethnic essentialist viewpoints more than it is some literal ideology.

Please present evidence for this claim. Thanks.

[Rich]

The first settlers in North America were Europeans who arrived during the last ice age. They were genocided at the end of the last ice age by invading Siberians.

[MistyTiger]

Didn't read all the posts. Who the hell said racism ended? I still see it as very much alive and raging on, some could say it is thriving particularly when a certain white bully like Trump is in power and he is encouraging all the bigots and idiots.

[Zamuel]

Didn't read all the posts. Who the hell said racism ended? I still see it as very much alive and raging on, some could say it is thriving particularly when a certain white bully like Trump is in power and he is encouraging all the bigots and idiots.

You have to put "the end of racism" into context before these posts will make any sense. here is one such context that has been a bone of contention.

Let me phrase it this way ... Once upon a time (in the USA) racism was legitimate. Supported by government and social convention. That changed, today it is not legitimate. Racism has been repudiated and removed from it's former protected status. It has become (generally) socially unacceptable.

Some of us equate these factors as the "end of racism" ... We all recognize that it hangs on and struggles to reassert itself and I think most people would agree there is still a need to fight it's resurgence.

[Sivad]

So you have no argument and have failed to refute any of my claims.

you said "white separatists can also claim to be victims of racism"... that's game over for you.

[Zamuel]

Just as fun of a thread concept: when did racism start?

I think you can reliably trace it to the Roman Empire ... beyond that it gets sketchy ... I'd point at the Egyptians for further reference.

"Racism" is largely an ideological tag applied to enemies of liberalism who embrace specific ethnic essentialist viewpoints more than it is some literal ideology.

Except when those "essentialist viewpoints" are literal ideology.

Zam

[One Degree]

Delete

[Rich]

Racism is older than humanity. Primitive racism can be seen in chimps. It can also be found in the most isolated and primitive tribes that have been discovered in the last two hundred years. You can see new racism's emerging even in street gangs. The Crips and the Bloods for example display a lot of the facets of primitive tribalism. Tribalism both emerges out of difference but also consciously creates it. Language differences are deliberately created. When tribes split its been know for a tribe to reverse the words for yes and no just to be different. Very often ethnicity is born out of hatred.

The White supremacist racism that began to emerge in the fourteenth century is something we should be deeply proud of. This was tribal solidarity on a new scale, although it could be said that Christianity itself was a highly developed form of tribalism. Both Christianity and White supremacism were a testament to the towering cultural and moral superiority of Europeans over non Europeans.