Abolish the White Race - By Any Means Necessary

[jakell]

Do you believe that race can be real and a social construct?

Its a badly framed question.

There is one race. The human one.

The "white race' isn't a real physical thing. Its an idea, its only real in that it exists inside peoples heads.

if you think "real" and a "social construct" have the same weight then you're mistaken - they don't. so no. Race is either real or a social construct cos its the same word used to describe 2 different things. They shouldn't be confused with each other.

The word is used to delineate the border between humanity and the rest of the animal kingdom. If people think its real and a social construct its because they thinks some humans aren't as human as others.

Ok I read 82s comment and I agree. Although he's called it a social construct and I've called it a real thing as in race = species.

I agree entirely, unfortunately it's that very dichotomy that the majority of the 'race' argument orbits around. Both race deniers and race 'realists' accept its stark premise with very little thought.

Given that this is a fairly universal sticking point, I accept that the 'badly framed question' is important, just as the badly framed concept of race is important, and to subject it simply to a stark dichotomy in order to dismiss either point of view goes nowhere apart from around in circles.

So, I submit that race is both real and a social construct. (throwing out the 'or')

[Joe Hillshoist]

Joe, I understand the first part of what you're saying. It's a stupid signifier. As for the second part, I would hope that you would assume, as a longtime RI participant if nothing else, that I am opposed to the horrors you mention as well. I am not so limited, so blindered, so fucking inhumane as to see events, constructions, words, actions that affect my group as worse than those that affect others.

Come on, man. Why would you assume that about me? It's a hostile assumption, wouldn't you say?

I did not feel unsafe in the two wonderful cities I mentioned. I only felt that most people there saw me as "white". Not in a bad way, but... it was there. That's the world. That's the history we have.

But this thread title is hostile. And to immediately respond to a statement about its bald hostility with some pretty academic theory (or worse, imputations of bigotry on my part) exposes its dishonest construction: it wants the revolutionary, justice-hungry fervor of a cry for blood while retreating to a bland world of theory once addressed.

And that's bad. That's sneaky. That's low.

And to immediately respond to a statement about its bald hostility with some pretty academic theory (or worse, imputations of bigotry on my part) exposes its dishonest construction: it wants the revolutionary, justice-hungry fervor of a cry for blood while retreating to a bland world of theory once addressed.

The concept needs to be killed then burned and its ashes scattered to the four winds. It needs to be removed from our society because it is dangerous and responsible for centuries of injustice and bloodshed. If you (generally dear reader, not necessarily you km) identify with "the white race" then you need to destroy that aspect of your identity the way a Buddhist destroys their personal attachments. Thinking of yourself as 'white" is one thing, its really only a shade of skin colour with geopolitical and historical associations, you could think of yourself as of European descent/ancestry and it would be no different/ calling someone "a white person" is just a shorthand way of describing that.

On the other hand thinking of yourself as part of the 'white race' is an attachment to a thing that only exists to divide you from the rest of the world. A thing that was only invented so your "masters" could steal stuff from you and other people. I don't think the hostility is undeserved. It seemed obvious to me not hidden or sneaky.

As for the second part, I would hope that you would assume, as a longtime RI participant if nothing else, that I am opposed to the horrors you mention as well. I am not so limited, so blindered, so fucking inhumane as to see events, constructions, words, actions that affect my group as worse than those that affect others.

Come on, man. Why would you assume that about me? It's a hostile assumption, wouldn't you say?

It was definitely a challenge, but not a hostile one. And it wasn't an assumption.

I didn't really process this:

The term, when employed colloquially, refers to PEOPLE. I am "white", regardless of whether I want to "own" that or not, and walks through Kampala or Shanghai are not events that encourage a purely theoretical use of the term. "Feels real enough in enough real-world situations" is essentially what I'm saying.

... when i "read" it. So i did mistake what you said for something else that wasn't there.

Sorry.

[jakell]

....The concept needs to be killed then burned and its ashes scattered to the four winds. It needs to be removed from our society because it is dangerous and responsible for centuries of injustice and bloodshed....

The history of the attempted removal of ideas from the minds of humans has not gone well, pretty bloody every time if I recall.

On a hopefully positive note, here's another suggestion I made on page 2:

Alternatively, you could try to be content about people having their various notions about race etc as long as they behave decently towards each other.

Trying to micro-manage people's belief systems, no matter how odd, is extremely impractical (herding cats), but is also pretty authoritarian. Even though this possibly stems from altruistic motivations, it will end badly if someone in power doesn't like the fact that people are stubborn.

[Joe Hillshoist]

I agree entirely, unfortunately it's that very dichotomy that the majority of the 'race' argument orbits around. Both race deniers and race 'realists' accept its stark premise with very little thought.

Given that this is a fairly universal sticking point, I accept that the 'badly framed question' is important, just as the badly framed concept of race is important, and to subject it simply to a stark dichotomy in order to dismiss either point of view goes nowhere apart from around in circles.

So, I submit that race is both real and a social construct. (throwing out the 'or')

Whatever. It can be both if you really want. What really matters is how the word used within language.


If you use the word race to refer to anything other than every human then you are using a social construct to divide the human race into heirarchial levels of humanness. Historically the term "white race" has been used to do exactly that. It enabled European leaders to foster a sense of superiority for themselves and their subjects to a lesser degree. That sense of superiority was then be used to excuse and justify any manner of crimes from theft thru slavery, rape and murder all the way to genocide.

So as a social construct its a tool of division.

And since ultimately the only war is an endless class war .... have you ever heard the term "divide and conquer"?

[Joe Hillshoist]

....The concept needs to be killed then burned and its ashes scattered to the four winds. It needs to be removed from our society because it is dangerous and responsible for centuries of injustice and bloodshed....

The history of the attempted removal of ideas from the minds of humans has not gone well, pretty bloody every time if I recall.

On a hopefully positive note, here's another suggestion I made on page 2:

Alternatively, you could try to be content about people having their various notions about race etc as long as they behave decently towards each other.

Trying to micro-manage people's belief systems, no matter how odd, is extremely impractical (herding cats), but is also pretty authoritarian. Even though this possibly stems from altruistic motivations, it will end badly if someone in power doesn't like the fact that people are stubborn.

I'm not trying to remove from the world or peoples minds - just pointing out that it needs to happen to make the world a better place. I couldn't do it anyway. People need to be responsible for their own minds. They are the ones using them.

The whole reason this discussion is happening is because the term "white race" has always been used to stop people behaving decently toward each other. That is why it exists. That is its raising de tree.

Thanks for the lecture. And your helpful suggestion about maintaining a helpful Uncle Tom attitude.

I think I'll just stay angry about it tho.

Cheers.

[jakell]

I agree entirely, unfortunately it's that very dichotomy that the majority of the 'race' argument orbits around. Both race deniers and race 'realists' accept its stark premise with very little thought.

Given that this is a fairly universal sticking point, I accept that the 'badly framed question' is important, just as the badly framed concept of race is important, and to subject it simply to a stark dichotomy in order to dismiss either point of view goes nowhere apart from around in circles.

So, I submit that race is both real and a social construct. (throwing out the 'or')

Whatever. It can be both if you really want. What really matters is how the word used within language.


If you use the word race to refer to anything other than every human then you are using a social construct to divide the human race into heirarchial levels of humanness. Historically the term "white race" has been used to do exactly that. It enabled European leaders to foster a sense of superiority for themselves and their subjects to a lesser degree. That sense of superiority was then be used to excuse and justify any manner of crimes from theft thru slavery, rape and murder all the way to genocide.

So as a social construct its a tool of division.

And since ultimately the only war is an endless class war .... have you ever heard the term "divide and conquer"?

I think you are using 'division' in a purely negative sense here, but it can be seen that humans form groups all the time, often making them quite solid and tenacious (whilst still not being 'real'), and these groupings do not automatically lead to conflict and barbarism.

We might say that this is bad un-progressive behaviour to be frowned upon, but to me it seems patronising and authoritarian to proscribe it. On top of that it doesn't actually work, people eventually push back (incidentally introucing a fresh conflict), and to a degree this is what we are seeing as a resurgence in far-right thinking today, a reaction to pushy hubristic Leftism.

[Joe Hillshoist]

The use of the term "white race" has always been in the context of dividing humans for exploitation and conflict.

If you keep saying that it possibly isn't you're either mistaken or lying.

[jakell]

The use of the term "white race" has always been in the context of dividing humans for exploitation and conflict.

If you keep saying that it possibly isn't you're either mistaken or lying.

'Always', are you sure about that?
It's the exploitation and conflict bit I'm questioning here, not the dividing.

I would say that in the first instance, it (and less specific variants of it) has been used as a term of classification, ie neutral. How people then go on to use it may vary though. It seems to be the usage of it that you object to here.

There is a degree of self selection here though, shouty and simplistic people (and consequently the memes they favour) will always be more prominent and get more airplay, that how humans behave.

[Joe Hillshoist]

I'm pretty sure about it. You're welcome to try and find me some examples of it actually being used neutrally if you like. Don't get upset when i show you it isn't tho.

[jakell]

I'm pretty sure about it. You're welcome to try and find me some examples of it actually being used neutrally if you like. Don't get upset when i show you it isn't tho.

The Wiki article would be a good place to start. Of course, it then goes on to describe negative contexts, but there's the rub, it goes on to do that, in the first instance it is a neutral concept and so it should be. No proper discussion would be possible if the term had some inherent emotional charge from the outset (assuming there even could be such a thing).

If you said 'mostly' then I would be with you, allowing for that weighting I described, but 'always' sounds like an unsupportable claim and I'm not surprised you are now hedging on it.

[Joe Hillshoist]

I'm not hedging on it. I am sure you will be unable to find one (or more) example(s) of the term "white race" being used to promote anything other than division to enable exploitation and conflict.

With one exception. People talking about the term "white race" as a thing, what it is, who uses it and why.

people may use the term 'innocently' not realising it is poisoning their minds ... well programming them anyway. You'll find when they do use it then itimmediately starts framing their worldviews and expression in nasty ways.

[jakell]

I'm not hedging on it. I am sure you will be unable to find one (or more) example(s) of the term "white race" being used to promote anything other than division to enable exploitation and conflict.

With one exception. People talking about the term "white race" as a thing, what it is, who uses it and why.

people may use the term 'innocently' not realising it is poisoning their minds ... well programming them anyway. You'll find when they do use it then itimmediately starts framing their worldviews and expression in nasty ways.

Seems we're agreed then... 'always' was a pretty long shot and best sidelined.

I think we can agree on 'mostly', taking into account that weighting I described. It seems we may be usefully moving on from terms having an inherent weight to them, and how it is careless or malign usage of them that is the problem (human fallability again). The problem being in not noticing the, sometimes barely noticeable, gap before we pile on our preconceptions.

[jakell]

On this point of agreement I'm going to sign off and take a walk (V nice weather today)

I'm expecting the kopypasta kween to turn up soon anyway, so that might be it for the rest of the day even.

[Sounder]

It is a class war alright, as the chattering class shifts the blame away from world class fascist and racist social dissolution experts, and on to yet more victims of of their world reshaping crusade.

The White European power structure is maintained by subverting the aspirations of regular white people as well as those of any and all other races.

You know, because race and our social constructing of it distracts from the more salient class issues.

[82_28]

This not about me whatsoever. I just wanna say that I got a lot of shit for befriending "minorities" growing up. Stupid as hell. South Denver is white as fuck. I always from maybe 2nd grade on I identified people who were outsiders because of their "race". As a kid, we all were once, I just got made fun of for not being racist but racism bit me in the butt by not being accepted by my "peers". I didn't consider it "bullying" but I got made fun of sure enough for it. I just shot right back without ever being in a fight in my life. But one girl I really liked was black and I dumped her because of adolescent peer pressure because I was the only white kid in school going to school homecoming with someone black who was basically the only black person in it. I fucking wilted under the pressure. So fucking dumb. It happens. It just happens. And it sucks that it does.

I remember going to the mall and picking up on adults aghast at interracial couples walking around. That wore on me as a kid I guess.

But I did literally piss on skinheads once in order to humiliate them while they stood in a trash can.

We all have a story or two.