First thing's first: KEEP. THIS. SHIT. CIVIL. If you can't talk about race without resorting to childish insults and rude generalizations or getting angry at people who don't see it your way, leave the thread.
With that said, I bring you to what can hopefully be the general thread about race.
First, a few starter questions.
- How, if at all, do you feel your race affects your everyday life?
- Do you believe that white people (or whatever the majority race in your area is) receive privileges simply because of the color of their skin. How much?
- Do you believe minorities are discriminated against for the same reason? How much?
- Do you believe that assimilation of cultures is better than people trying to keep their own?
- Affirmative Action. Yea, Nay? Why or why not?
Also, a personal question from me.
- Why (in my experience, not trying to generalize) do white people often try to insist that they aren't white? I can't count the number of times I've heard "I'm not white, I'm 1/4th English, 1/4th German, 1/4th Scandinavian 1/8th Cherokee, and 1/8th Russian," as though 4 of 5 of those things aren't considered "white" by the masses. Is it because you have pride for your ancestry, or an attempt to try and differentiate yourself from all those "other" white people? Or something else altogether?
edited 30th May '11 9:16:04 PM by Wulf
The Mod with the Migraine
Honestly, the longer this goes on, the more I feel inclined to agree with the "save the world; punch a Nazi" mindset.
It doesn't help that it appears that Nazis themself eager to fight for petty things. They always act and say stuff, specifically to hurt and anger people.
In the name of being honest
Militant antifa drove out neo-Nazi bands like Skrewdriver from the punk scene in the '90s. In this case, measured violence worked, though obviously it didn't work perfectly as they're making a resurgence in other genres like black metal. If you're advocating violence or "love" as a blanket solution, you're probably being more concerned with your own feelings than anything resembling a strategy.
Echoing hymn of my fellow passerine | Art blog (under construction)
A procrastination in of itself
I’d be interested in seeing the legal argument made for attacking Nazis, the argument being that an active Nazi is inherently trying to kill people, as such stopping them by force is simply a form of self-defence.
It wouldn’t pass, but the political theatre involved in that defence would be something to see indeed.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Malcolm X discussed this subject at length where he pointed out that white supremacists will get away with as much violence as humanly possible while also depending on the authorities to side with them in said issues. We see a certain level of it applied to even white protestors as people talk at great length of the dangers of antifa vandalizing people when white supremacists are murdering people left and right.
Malcolm's argument was that violence was still justified but expect plenty of pushback as well as suffering along the way. Notably, he also believed that white people would end up caving and supporting non-violent civil rights (and relayed the basis of this to Martin Luther King in a meeting).
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Mar 17th 2019 at 12:30:04 PM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
He and MLK reached a compromise where the threat of violence makes nonviolence more palatable, in a pragmatic invocation of the Golden Mean, rather than encouraging violence as the primary and most necessary means to accomplishing one's goals, like a lot of radicals propose.
There has been some interesting new research on the makeup of the crew of the Mary Rose (England's most famous ship wreck) that I thought I would share that gives an insight into the racial diversety of Tudor England.
Mary Rose crew 'was from Mediterranean and North Africa'
Bone structure and DNA of 10 skeletons found on board were analysed by team at Cardiff and Portsmouth universities.
They said four of the skeletons were of southern European heritage, and one seems to have hailed from Morocco or Algeria.
The findings cast fresh light on the ethnic makeup of Tudor Britain.
The Mary Rose sank in 1545 in the Solent during a naval battle with the French, with the loss of between 400 and 600 lives.
Dr Nick Owen headed the team at Swansea University which used photogrammetry - a method of producing high definition, photorealistic 3-D images - to visually analyse the remains.
"Having studied the skull of one of the men who went down with the Mary Rose, we found the bone structure was consistent with someone who had North African features, and DNA evidence seems to back this up," he said.
"Today, with a much more mobile world population, it would have been harder to isolate, but in the 16th Century it's easier to pinpoint facial characteristics to a specific location.
"Henry, as we've named him, had a broad nose bridge and wide cheek bones which are far more similar to skeletons found in Morocco or Algeria than those of the indigenous British population of the time."
While sailors were, even then, much more mobile than the population as a whole, Henry does not appear to have joined the navy from abroad.
By analysing oxygen isotopes in his teeth, and levels of sulphur, nitrogen and carbon in his bones, the team discovered that he was brought up in the south of England.
"By the time our adult teeth form, the chemical evidence of the food and water in our environment is locked in, and in Henry's case it's clear that he grew up around Portsmouth, the Mary Rose's home port," Dr Owen added.
"I'm a scientist not an historian, but it does question a lot of the assumptions we've previously made about how diverse the Tudor population was."
The precise cause of the Mary Rose's sinking has never been identified, though the most common theory is that additions made to the ship in 1536 caused her to sit lower in the water, and thus allowed water in through the open gun ports as she turned in battle.
The wreck was raised from the seabed in 1982.
The analysis of the remains also reveals the crew were better fed than the population as a whole, but due to the lack of variety in their diet, most suffered from conditions such as rickets and scurvy.
Some of the skeletons studied also showed bone abnormalities in the arms which suggested they had been archers.
Researchers collaborated with the Mary Rose Trust on the project, which features in a Channel 4 documentary.
The findings form part of a major new exhibition at the Mary Rose Museum in Portsmouth, including 3D printed facial reconstructions of several of the skulls.
In the name of being honest
The maritime workforce has always been highly mobile. Skilled sailors will find a home in every port. The bit about the guy who grew up in the south of England is a very interesting find, though.
Edited by eagleoftheninth on Mar 18th 2019 at 4:05:15 AM
Echoing hymn of my fellow passerine | Art blog (under construction)
Servant of the Omnissiah
The problem with saying that Nazis can be attacked brings up the question - how do you know someone is a neo-Nazi/alt-right/far-right shithead?
Because, aside from the card-carrying idiots, how do you determine someone is holding far-Right or racist views? What if they don't keep any paraphernalia that indicates they are of that mindset?
And what to do when the inevitable false-cases crop up, done by people who want to settle scores rather than keep society safe?
Not saying the idea is wrong - just saying that maybe discussing the pitfalls openly will make people a lot more willing to support non-violent ways of driving them out of civilised society, like the argument between MLK and MX.
Because while one can't fault the Antifa for wasting every neo-Nazi they find, I'd prefer to eventually create a world where we can persuade people not to pick such views in the first place. Call me an optimist.
Edited by TechPriest90 on Mar 18th 2019 at 8:40:21 AM
I hold the secrets of the machine.
That reminds me of a random bit of history:
Andromeda from the original Greek Myth was a African woman and described as black.
Almost no depictions of the legend of Perseus have ever shown her as such.
https://www.theroot.com/how-andromeda-the-daughter-of-ethiopian-royalty-ended-1790876123
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Mar 18th 2019 at 7:28:30 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Oh, bother.
There was clearly a lot of psychological projection going on there.
Disgusted, but not surprised
I love this Slate article on Dolly Parton's Dixie Stampede.
https://slate.com/culture/2017/08/visiting-dolly-partons-dinner-show-dixie-stampede.html
We used to do this every year for five years with my family.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
x6
There's absolutely wonderful youtube video answering this question and many more similar on this subject. I highly recommended you (or anyone even remotely interested) to watch.
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
Got a summary for people who can't watch it?
Oh really when?
Obviously it's a complex topic (therefore, hard to summarize). This video provide more in-depth analysis of history, tactics and actions of fascist and antifa as well, especially in sociological and philosophical context.
For example, most people cannot even properly define word "fascism" and - to be fair - it is kinda tricky.
Professional Forum Ninja
Thaaaaats a little stupid.
Not really.
It's not some amazing book whose absence will stunt the literary knowledge of students. It's an (arguably) decent story that is filled with racism. Not much is lost if it's removed. If students want to read it they can do it on their own time, as I did.
If they don't they aren't going to be missing much.
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
I feel like that's a statement that ignores:
- It's about racism
- It's about a racist boy
- It's about a racist boy in Antebellum slave culture
- It's about a racist boy in Antebellum slave culture who decides that racism is evil.
- It's about him choosing to believe that despite the fact he has been taught it will endanger his immortal soul and ostracize him.
The effectiveness of Huckleberry Finn has been about the fact it shows internalized racism and how hard it is to overcome it.
And it's usually had people who wanted to remove it be Neo-Confederates and those who want to romanticize the South.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Mar 22nd 2019 at 8:44:45 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Yes, it's the story of a white kid realizing that a black guy is a person. While using the n-bomb.
If I were a black person I wouldn't be fond of either.
The idea that black people are people is not a controversial idea, the racism of the book is just fundamentally different from modern American racism. I see no reason to believe that it's effective or useful.
Modern racists don't (explicitly) doubt the personhood of black people, they talk about "race realism" or use other dog whistles. Huckleberry Finn in no way helps with any of that. The Overton window has (thankfully) shifted too far away from it.
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
I think it still has historical value and value as literature.
That said, I think we're in a bizarre place right now where works that go "racism is bad" tend to be harmful because if racism is portrayed as "I don't like black people" and dropping blatant slurs, it obfuscates the actual racism that abounds in day to day life.
It makes people think that racists are cartoonish caricatures and as long as they're not that, then they're not racist.
Even racists tend to agree with racism being bad. They just don't agree on what racism is.
Edited by Larkmarn on Mar 22nd 2019 at 11:55:59 AM
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Y’know you can change how the book is taught, without removing it entirely.
