Race- Privilege, Relations, Racism, etc.

I like language features, like null subject, which is why I hate english, I feel I sound like a moron because I am always saying I this, I that, I whereyouat.

I like case systems because they give me a sense of rigid structure in learning the language.

German is romantic as hell...

I like German because it is sincere. You have to be saying something romantic or angry for it to come out that way.

Now Spanish? You can make a grocery list sound romantic just because of the way the language is designed. Portuguese and Italian can pull it off to.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

Gli troperi dibattito razzismo.

Damn Italian, you sexy.^note If that was right, and duolingo hasn't let me down.

edited 28th Mar '15 3:32:11 PM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei

Well, my native language and the others mentioned are Romance languages, after all.

Though I don't know where's the romanticism in this kind of shopping list:

Dois quilos de couves, quatro quilos de arroz, doze laranjas e um pepino. This list probably sounds more romantic in Spanish, though I doubt it.

---

Aren't we going off-topic?

edited 28th Mar '15 3:45:01 PM by Quag15

Nah, that's just not-speaking-the-language talking. I mean, I can swear at you if you want, but I doubt you'll find it to sound particularly romantic.

I suppose that's something of all languages though. I find French fancy as hell, but native French speakers obviously don't.

Dopants: He meant what he said and he said what he meant, a Ninety is faithful 100%.

Dos kilos de "blank" cuatro kilos de arroz, doce naranjas y un pepino.

What is a couve?

Couve (or couves - plural) is Brassica oleracea / col silvestre.

edited 28th Mar '15 3:53:11 PM by Quag15

That's enough dago gibberish, back to racism, like that observation.

edited 28th Mar '15 3:52:46 PM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei

Opino que los latinos somos la raza superior.

Dopants: He meant what he said and he said what he meant, a Ninety is faithful 100%.

Because their relationship is direct from my experiences regardless of what logic and studies have dictated to me. It's one thing to logically understand something based on reasonable documentation and facts, but it's another when you have feelings and experiences ingrained based on numerous encounters throughout most of your life.

There is an extremely powerful barrier between what I know and what I feel. I understand, factually, that it's a true dialect worthy of study, what i have experienced is that it's the language of people I have to distance myself from as much as possible in order to be considered professional or credible.

Maybe if I was raised with such people and was able to understand the value of switching between dialects based on context I would have a different view. But I was not, so I only understand the importance of being "proper" and "civilized" by the standards I was riased by and not coming off as an awful person.

The Blog The Art

I made a bet with the Russian exchange student and the Italian on who could make a girl giggle by whispering in her ear first. They were only allowed to recite proper nouns.

The Italian got four numbers and a fiancée by that trick.

It is not what you are saying, it is how you are saying it. The structure of the romance language makes it easy to do. As long as the girl doesn't speak the language, you can fake it.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

Do we have a thread on languages and love/romanticism? If not, we could make one.

Unless one whispers to her 'puta'. Then one just gets a kick in the balls (and deservedly so).

But fair point. Thanks for complimenting our Romance languages.

edited 28th Mar '15 4:19:43 PM by Quag15

Mousa The1428th's outlook on AAVE somewhat cosigns with my own. As I've previously mentioned, If I'm having a conversation with someone, I need to be able to accurately convey my thoughts to them. I can't do this using AAVE.

Surely the following isn't unique to persons of Black African descent, but I've suffered scrutiny, ostracization, and ridicule from my own racial peers if I didn't behave or speak in an expected manner around them. As an adolescent, my parents restricted their use of AAVE in the home (for the most part) and lived a calm, moderate lifestyle. I took a heavy liking to writing and reading when I was younger, leading me to incorporate the sentences that I ritually peered over into my own pattern of speech.

When I came across members of my own race in my youth, I tried to engage them in the only way that I knew how: by not using AAVE and by not displaying the expected mannerism that they were directly or indirectly coached to mirror.

This didn't go over too well. I was accused of “acting white”, the children kept their distance from me, and I increasingly felt like an outsider. From them on, code-switching became a necessary skill to develop in order to navigate Black American social circles with any degree of efficiency. It was almost mechanical in its execution: encounter someone white (or a non-native English speaker) and you flick the "Proper English" switch to the ON position. Run across someone of your own color and you default to the AAVE setting.

And I'm still code-switching to this very day.

But to experience this from your own people? That really burned at the time. Even after attempting to adopt the mental mode and vernacular motif of my kin and kith, I still didn't achieve success with most black people, and I began to feel discouraged over the whole thing because I didn't feel comfortable in my own skin. I felt like I was a traitor to my own "unique" persona that I had painstakingly sculpted from birth.

And so I gave it all up. I became me again. I was proud of me. If that meant being kicked out of the Borg, so be it.

Though, this isn't "entirely" a racial thing; humans don't respond to "different" very well in general, and running afoul of the status quo can make things difficult for you.

This fear of the "different"? It's genetic. It's natural. It's a survival mechanism that nature bestowed upon the human psyche in order to fulfill a very critical need. You can't do away with those primal instincts; you can only suppress them or pretend that they do not exist by instituting flawed philosophies and drafting "hot fixes" for social problems. This very simple reason is partially why I oppose integration and multiculturalism. It's why I'm no longer a progressive.

It's also why I dislike the current edition of black culture and a sizable segment of the black population of America. I don't see these persons as allies of the race, but as obstacles that must be negotiated in order for success to be gained. To me, they prevent a revolutionary redefining of what it means to be black from taking place.

Moving 45 million people to a new location is impossible, but I (or anyone else for that manner) shouldn't have to live with people who are incapable of living morally-upright lives or conducting themselves in a peaceful, modest manner. You don't have to split the atom for me to be happy or accepting, but the least you can do is not destroy a neighborhood that I've lived in for eight years.

If whites can segregate or disown their own destructive members, why can't a black person? Do we all have to stick together and back each other no matter what? Is monolithic thought required? Do we all have to blame slavery for our woes? How does doing away with unwanted persons make me a monster? Because society said so?

That's hogwash.

And no, the media didn't make me this way, so don't even spin that weak rebuttal.

It was life.

edited 29th Mar '15 9:36:48 AM by ESH20

I would call that meta-racism. Biological justification for racism, not because race is natural but because racism itself is natural. So what if they are "merely" suppressed? We do the same thing with other natural instincts as well for a society to work. It's like arguing that laws against assault and murder are wrong because they never work 100% anyway and only force people to suppress their instincts.

edited 29th Mar '15 11:13:06 AM by Antiteilchen

Laws that restrain murder and assault work; the degree to which they are successful depends on the country in question.

But trying to sustain a nation with multiple races, ethnic groups, and religious belief systems typically only ends with one group being on the top and one (or more) being on the bottom. South Africa is an excellent recent example of this. So is America. So is (or rather, was) Liberia.

Personally, I'm tired of being a minority, I want a better culture (and not the junk that I'm forced to be associated with today), and I'm tired of being held to standards that I can never meet.

When you try to make this institutional folly work, you wind up with the mess that is Nigeria or hoards of furious Europeans that have been duped into absorbing an irrational factoid that decrees that the entire Caucasoid race is going to be driven into extinction by dark-skinned boat people, Sharia Law, and its army of "welfare-sucking" Muslim supporters.

I mean seriously, look at any Youtube video that has something to do with the Scandinavian people or Scandinavian culture. You will be bombarded with a swarm of "culturally accepting", ethnocentric ex-vikings that absolutely adore multiculturalism. Why would I want to integrate with that? Are you serious? And this type of thinking is absolutely surging across Europe! It's the same exact thing here in the US!

If you can point me to a multicultural and multiracial society that actually works and that isn't laden with racial inequality or crawling with a bunch of disenfranchised or culturally-defunct ethnic groups, I'll reconsider my platform on multiculturalism and integration.

But something tells me that you cannot.

edited 29th Mar '15 12:40:27 PM by ESH20

So just dividing everyone up is the answer? Separate and equal like?

Oh really when?

Laws that ensure multiculturalism work; the degree to which they are successful depends on the country in question.

You really shouldn't base any worldview on youtube.

While Front National, Lega Nord or UKIP are quite popular, that does not constitute 'hoards of furious Europeans'.

No, it is not the same exact sodding thing here. Don't project your US problems onto us.

And, again, you're assuming that All Europeans Are Scandinavian. Have you ever wondered how incredibly diverse Europe actually is? How integration is harder or easier in some places? And how integration depends more on socio-economical cohesion (and laws, as Anti said)? You want to know why the far-right douches are rising in Europe? It's because of the economic crisis/stagnation.

Ok, I've understood your problems for a long time, but you're now demonstrating an incredible ignorance in regards to Europe.

Not everyone is on board with multiculturalism these days, but that's more because they're fed up with the economy and the inefficient and/or corrupt politicians/bankers.

While there's no perfect society, I can tell you my nation is working on it. It's one of the few nations where the Muslim community is fairly well integrated; where, in spite of some recent infiltration of far-rightards in the police and especially private security forces, black people tend to be generally well-treated (and we're slowly solving our post-colonial issues).

But you seem to be willing to just... give up and saying that, because there's no multicultural society that is perfect, that we should just abandon our work in progress and just divide for the sake of division.

edited 29th Mar '15 1:00:58 PM by Quag15

Another huge issue is that you're conflating race and culture. I mean, you've seen how messed-up and ever-shifting our concept of race is, right?

Let me boil this down for you - are the Irish white? Are Italians? Are Ashkenazi Jews? If yes (and it should be pointed out here that this has only been the case for anywhere between a century and a few decades, and a few people still aren't sure about the Ashkenazis), what makes, say, a white Italian more culturally compatible with a white Irishman than a black Italian?

What's precedent ever done for us?

I can't make sense of this. They're culturally accepting but ethno-centric? They adore multiculturalism and therefore you don't want to integrate?


Now I'm even more confused. Why are you taking something he said about Scandinavia as a personal insult when you're in Portugal? You're admitting Europe is diverse, but you think all Europeans share the same "problems" and are totally distinct from the ones in the US? Why do you think anti-immigration sentiment in the US is totally different from in Europe?

This fear of the "different"? It's genetic. It's natural. It's a survival mechanism that nature bestowed upon the human psyche in order to fulfill a very critical need. You can't do away with those primal instincts; you can only suppress them or pretend that they do not exist by instituting flawed philosophies and drafting "hot fixes" for social problems. This very simple reason is partially why I oppose integration and multiculturalism. It's why I'm no longer a progressive.

This is why I asked about miscegnation. If the fear of the unknown is innate and severe enough to inevitably cause conflict, isn't it inherently immoral to raise a child stuck between two races?

What's precedent ever done for us?

You really shouldn't base any worldview on youtube.

That was one example. Travel the internet and you'll find a wide variety of forums, news article comment threads, academic reports, and blogs that denounce multiculturalism. The real-world anti-immigration protests should be noted as well.

But you seem to be willing to just... give up and saying that, because there's no multicultural society that is perfect, that we should just abandon our work in progress and just divide for the sake of division.

It's not dividing for the sake of division. People are going to divide anyway because that is what humans do. They divide along class lines, racial lines and gender lines. It's tribalism at its finest.

Good luck fighting it.

And giving up? Sure. But for my people, I'd rather teach them self-determination and self-sufficiency than talk about race. Booker T. Washington, Malcolm X, and Marcus Garvey would probably agree with me.

Integration as a whole has made the group weak, fractured, and lost.

Because saving the entire flock is impossible, I'd rather take those blacks that have the drive and determination for success and carve out a new community. The current one is done and over with.

I can't make sense of this. They're culturally accepting but ethno-centric? They adore multiculturalism and therefore you don't want to integrate?

That was sarcasm. I should have made that more apparent.

This is why I asked about miscegnation. If the fear of the unknown is innate and severe enough to inevitably cause conflict, isn't it inherently immoral to raise a child stuck between two races?

Elaborate.

edited 29th Mar '15 2:08:36 PM by ESH20

European solidarity and the fact that he extrapolated the Scandinavian context towards the whole of Europe and Europeans (and I quote: "You will be bombarded with a swarm of "culturally accepting", ethnocentric ex-vikings that absolutely adore multiculturalism. Why would I want to integrate with that? Are you serious? And this type of thinking is absolutely surging across Europe!")

The problem wasn't so much that as was he saying "It's the same exact thing here in the US!" Anti-immigration sentiments may be similar in terms of expression, but they often tend to be projected here in European countries through various prisms and due to various reasons (with most of them being of an economic nature), while the US's^note (whose economy has been growing) anti-immigration sentiments have a different context.

edited 29th Mar '15 2:07:24 PM by Quag15

Scandinavia was one example. You see the same exact thing in many other European nations.

edited 29th Mar '15 2:06:24 PM by ESH20

Name them.