Threaded Order Chronological Order
| Oh, I've read much more racist things on All That Chat | |
| Last Edit: Singapore/Fling 12:41 am EST 02/11/21 | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 12:38 am EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: That is the most racist post I've ever read at ATC - KingSpeed 08:07 pm EST 02/10/21 | |
|
|
|
| Is this the most racist post on this board? I don't think so. Yes, it's racist and gross. Yes, it displays white supremacist thinking, and the poster is clearly threatened by the growing cultural power of BIPOC artists. But the poster was also quick to correct themselves, at least partly, for throwing a tantrum over their fear that the remake was a negation of the original film, and thus, presumably, an erasure of the white men and women who made it. I mean, the poster didn't come out and say they were apologizing, but it was clear that was happening, especially because the second article didn't say anything that wasn't in the first article. it was a pretense to dial down the racism of a post that I would say is far from the most aggressively racist thing I've read on this site. And yes, it's also gross that in the sort-of apology and submission to antiracist culture, the poster tossed out this darkly cynical thought that any attempts to create shows that don't center white people is a calculated business move, rather than the decent thing to do. That's definitely white supremacist thinking, and it makes me fear that the poster can't see BIPOC as human beings, which is the core of the problem that we're having as our nation tears itself apart over whether White people are going to clean up the mess that their ancestors made of the world when they invented race 400 years ago. But, I can't tell you how many racist things like that get posted on this site on a regular basis, and some of them are much more aggressive in their hostility. There's some people on this board who did not see anything wrong with the stories the Racist Gays told 'round the table in the Netflix "Tales of the City". Maybe you haven't been following that as closely over the past few years, but it can get pretty toxic on this site. So when a post like this happens, it feels like Medium on the Racism scale. So I think it's worth pointing out the racism, in the spirit of antiracist principles, but I can also acknowledge the gap between passive racism and active racism. Perhaps it's my own moral failing, but there are definitely days where calling out passive racism is just not worth the effort, and I put that energy more deeply into my own antiracist practices. But to each their own, |
|
| reply to this message |
| I don’t think racism was invented 400 years ago. | |
| Posted by: dramedy 11:52 am EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Oh, I've read much more racist things on All That Chat - Singapore/Fling 12:38 am EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| I think the jew slaves in Egypt would state that racism existed 5000 years ago. I don’t know if Aida has any historical context, but the Egyptians probably conquered and enslaved the races to the south of Egypt. Almost every major power from Greece to Romans and China and Japan to British etc empires had slaves that were not their own race. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: I don’t think racism was invented 400 years ago. | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 09:04 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: I don’t think racism was invented 400 years ago. - dramedy 11:52 am EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| The "Jew slaves"??? I hate to mince words, but that actually sounds a bit racist to me (as a Jewish man) as opposed to something like "Jewish slaves." | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I don’t think racism was invented 400 years ago. | |
| Posted by: ryhog 09:24 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I don’t think racism was invented 400 years ago. - Chromolume 09:04 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| I thought that when I read it but the perhaps-less-open-to-interpretation reason it's wrong is that Jew is not an adjective. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I don’t think racism was invented 400 years ago. | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 09:34 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I don’t think racism was invented 400 years ago. - ryhog 09:24 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Yes - I'd say that's the technical reason. But something about it also seems to make "jew" a pejorative, even if that was not meant. (And I'm sure it wasn't meant - but it was said regardless.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I don’t think racism was invented 400 years ago. | |
| Posted by: ryhog 10:57 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I don’t think racism was invented 400 years ago. - Chromolume 09:34 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| It struck me that way too. I think sometimes there are words that develop pejorative connotations from the way they are used by racists and that may be the case here. I've felt that way about how "gay" is sometimes used (e.g., "he's a gay" doesn't sit well whereas "he's gay" doesn't have the same connotation. I am also sure it was unintentional in this case. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I don’t think racism was invented 400 years ago. | |
| Posted by: singleticket 01:06 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: I don’t think racism was invented 400 years ago. - dramedy 11:52 am EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| I think the jew slaves in Egypt would state that racism existed 5000 years ago. Don't strike me down but I believe that the historical record on that is contested. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Yes, but... | |
| Last Edit: MockingbirdGirl 12:00 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 11:59 am EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: I don’t think racism was invented 400 years ago. - dramedy 11:52 am EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| ... slavery in the ancient world was based on conquest, not race. The Romans, for instance, absolutely had a large population of slaves who were among their conquered peoples... but also a large population of citizens of all skin colors and nationalities. You have to wait until the 18th century for the idea of cultural superiority to be based on the supposed innate characteristics of different "races." | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Yes, but... | |
| Last Edit: singleticket 01:12 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| Posted by: singleticket 01:04 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Yes, but... - MockingbirdGirl 11:59 am EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| You have to wait until the 18th century for the idea of cultural superiority to be based on the supposed innate characteristics of different "races." The Brahmins didn't wait, they had it down in 2000 BCE. Ancient mesoamerican culture also had slaves, royal hierarchies and caste systems. That culture had colonies as far north as where St. Louis sits now. But I can't argue that one of the main ways of looking at the history of race in the US is through the colonial catagorization of race and the way that practice continues into the present. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Yes, but... | |
| Posted by: ryhog 12:44 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Yes, but... - MockingbirdGirl 11:59 am EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| That's not correct. Long before the time of the Reconquista in Spain (15th C.), the Christians were hating on the Jews and the Moors, and that hate was very much based on cultural superiority. I suspect it goes back long before that and it was true many other places in Europe (Venice, Prague, Frankfurt, to name a few) in the 14th and 15th Centuries. And none of these had anything to do with conquest. I can't speak to the Egyptians in antiquity. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Yes, but... | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 02:14 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Yes, but... - ryhog 12:44 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Long before the time of the Reconquista in Spain (15th C.), the Christians were hating on the Jews and the Moors, and that hate was very much based on cultural superiority. Of course they were. But they were also hating on lily-white Protestants, as demonstrated by the extension of the Inquisition into the Spanish Netherlands. But I wouldn't lump it under the heading of slavery, in any event. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Yes, but... | |
| Posted by: ryhog 03:12 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Yes, but... - MockingbirdGirl 02:14 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| We are getting pretty far afield here but let me just note that you are off by a couple centuries. On your other point, I thought we were talking about racism and that slavery was of course a sidebar to that discussion. Maybe I merged when I should have remained in a separate lane. :-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I’m not a historian | |
| Posted by: dramedy 12:07 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Yes, but... - MockingbirdGirl 11:59 am EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| But I find it hard to believe the Egyptians didn’t feel superior to other races. I know the Bible has been used to justify slavery—However, I don’t know if it goes to any level of proof of superiority of races. But I’m not a historian or philosopher so really couldn’t debate the issues adequately. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I’m not a historian | |
| Last Edit: Singapore/Fling 01:26 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 01:21 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: I’m not a historian - dramedy 12:07 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| There is a good deal of research on the history of European powers in the 15th Century, specifically the Portuguese, creating the ideas of race predicated upon skin color, and the modern hierarchy of race in which societal power and status correlates to lightness of skin tone. When we talk about Black people or White people or East Asians, we are using language and a worldview that springs from the beginning of modern Colonialism and the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Biologically, there is no such thing as race, and the categories we create to contain people around race are a social construct. This isn't to say that there hasn't been ethno-nationalist prejudice for much longer, but that the idea of prejudice based upon the idea of race is relatively recent and created by (and for) people who came to be regarded as White. I did mistype when I wrote 400 years ago, as I was off in my math by an additional 200 years. I've been reading about this in a few books, but the one I'm referencing right now is Ibram X. Kendi's "How to Be an Antiracist", which I highly encourage reading. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Biologically there is no such thing as race? | |
| Posted by: dramedy 03:59 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I’m not a historian - Singapore/Fling 01:21 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| That is incorrect. Sickle cell anemia is a generic trait in the black race—I believe it is a mutation that actually prevents malaria. Tay-Sachs is passed down in Jewish decent. I’m sure there are many examples besides these. There are biological traits that are racially based. Even hair is biological based difference based on race. Using these differences to treat people differently is the issue. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| That is correct. Genetics are different than race. | |
| Last Edit: Singapore/Fling 04:32 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 04:26 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Biologically there is no such thing as race? - dramedy 03:59 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| As you admit, you are not a historian and have done no research on this. I encourage you to do the work to educate yourself on this. Biologically, there is no such thing as race in the way that we currently understand race in social terms. There are genetic variations within people who share ancestry, but those groupings are not biologically distinct races. Our understanding of the human genome is relatively new, occurring long after the grouping of people into races, and the scientific evidence shows that these groupings are not based in biology. (How could they be? The creation of race is from a time when leeches were the height of science.) In terms of Sickle Cell Disease, you can do some relatively quick Googling to find reading material showing that the prevalence of this disease in Black Americans can be traced to a relatively small number of specific African communities, including the Yorubans, Mandenkas, and Bantu people. Black Americans with that ancestry are linked to specific genetic communities, but we don't talk about the Yorubans as a race, because people of that ancestry have been folded into the larger grouping of "Black". |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Exactly right. | |
| Posted by: Quicheo 03:03 pm EST 02/12/21 | |
| In reply to: That is correct. Genetics are different than race. - Singapore/Fling 04:26 pm EST 02/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| And as a physician, I would like to comment further that Tay-Sacks and Sickle Cell and other diseases that have a genetic component can jump across the cultural divide sometimes called race or emerge independently in other ethnic, cultural, regional, and family lines. 3 out of 1,000 children from two white parents are born with Sickle Cell trait. Slightly less from two Asian parents. Race, if being most generous to the idea, could be scientifically analogous to a "breed" of dogs or cats, except the variability is significantly greater in the groupings humans have made of themselves, and I hesitate to give any credence to the idea of the superiority of any "pure line". |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.048275 seconds.