I find the idea that it's "self-hating" to consider whether we may have wronged people in the past (even if inadvertently) for the colour of their skin and think how we can avoid doing so again in the future pretty depressing. Humility, admitting we can be flawed and making an effort to learn from that and work against our worst impulses - to me those are traits that make you a stronger, more well-rounded person, not weaker or "self-hating".

 

The idea that the obsession is that more than anything else what we should be feeling is guilt is misplaced. What good is guilt on its own? Certainly not much to the people bearing the brunt of this kind of discrimination. Guilt is just an indulgent and self-hating emotion if it's in isolation. That's where you get the horrid performative "I have wronged!" breast beating that comes off as just a salve for the conscience instead. Guilt's only of use if it impresses on you any pain you've caused others and as a spur to make amends, to no longer be part of the problem and avoid hurting others in the same way again in the future. Guilt is pointless without change.

Edited September 1, 20177 yr by Qassändra

Honestly if all Muslims are getting the blame for their radical counterparts wrecking havoc on the streets, the white people should take responsibility for any bigotry that any one of them displays. It's only fair.

Honestly if all Muslims are getting the blame for their radical counterparts wrecking havoc on the streets, the white people should take responsibility for any bigotry that any one of them displays. It's only fair.

 

Bit of a false dichotomy there, one is an ideology and the other is a race, although I can understand why you would want to make the equivalence.

Bit of a false dichotomy there, one is an ideology and the other is a race, although I can understand why you would want to make the equivalence.

White supremacy is as much an ideology as radical Islam.

 

In any case, the distinction feels pretty moot - the people going "send 'em back" about attackers more often than not born and raised in the UK and saying that secular relatives of theirs should be fired from jobs at Heathrow certainly aren't approaching things as if they're all too fussed on the distinction between race and religion.

Edited September 1, 20177 yr by Qassändra

Honestly if all Muslims are getting the blame for their radical counterparts wrecking havoc on the streets, the white people should take responsibility for any bigotry that any one of them displays. It's only fair.

But that's just adding to the problem, and not helping get rid of it. The vast majority of muslims should NOT be getting the blame for the actions of a very small portion of radical extremists and the same should go for white people and a small portion of racist idiots.

White supremacy is as much an ideology as radical Islam.

 

In any case, the distinction feels pretty moot - the people going "send 'em back" about attackers more often than not born and raised in the UK and saying that secular relatives of theirs should be fired from jobs at Heathrow certainly aren't approaching things as if they're all too fussed on the distinction between race and religion.

 

..and I'd add I'm quite happy to spread the analogy to all bigotry. Like blaming all straight people for gay bigotry by some, religious bigotry against specific religions by some from competing religions etc etc

 

End of the day it's bigotry of one sort or another to lump groups of people together because of the actions of individuals from those groups - or in most cases, not even actions, just looking for excuses to justify bigotry.

...and she's been sacked. I guess that L'Oreal realised that white folk buy shampoo.

 

An acknowledgement that it's not just white people that can be racist.

 

Munroe's point wasn't about guilt or direct moral responsibility for the British Empire. It was that we have all benefited from racism. Which part of that was wrong or hypocritical?

 

The stereotyping 'all' part.

 

 

just to underline Qassandra's point about subconscious racism, even "leftie" students display this in rating their uni lecturers - latest stats suggest non-white and non-male profs get consistently less marks than white males.

 

Which inevitably leads to two possible conclusions :

 

1. That there is bias in marking against non-whites.

2. That they are genuinely less able than their white counterparts.

 

The first conclusion can best tested by having worked marked independently & anonymously, to eliminate bias.

 

The second one is far harder to assess, because even to suggest it is considered racist.

 

 

Honestly if all Muslims are getting the blame for their radical counterparts wrecking havoc on the streets, the white people should take responsibility for any bigotry that any one of them displays. It's only fair.

 

But only knuckle-dragging extreme-right loons blame all Muslims for the crimes of a few extremists.

 

Which inevitably leads to two possible conclusions :

 

1. That there is bias in marking against non-whites.

2. That they are genuinely less able than their white counterparts.

 

The first conclusion can best tested by having worked marked independently & anonymously, to eliminate bias.

 

The second one is far harder to assess, because even to suggest it is considered racist.

 

But only knuckle-dragging extreme-right loons blame all Muslims for the crimes of a few extremists.

 

It's a survey based on opinions of students of the staff, not exam marking and actual results. It may also be warped by the one of the supposed reasons behind the survey, which is to put up costs for students who over-egg some courses.

 

Logically, since it's more difficult to do well if you aren't a white male in the world of work, minorities should in theory be better than non-minorities in order to achieve the same. One would assume that it's an inbuilt unconscious (or conscious) bias by enough students to reduce the marks of minorities, though clearly not all students or they would get very poor results instead of marginally less-good than white males.

 

Your definition of knuckle-dragging extreme right loons is beautiful as it encompasses half of the British press and the current White House staff. Case proven m'lud. Thanks.

The stereotyping 'all' part.

I'm really not sure what part of this you find so hard to understand. We live in a country and society that is much wealthier for the riches it gained from empire and slavery. Even the poorest in this country are better off than the poorest in most other developed countries without those histories because of the societal benefits (a stronger economy, better infrastructure) that have come from that wealth. Even if you don't necessarily have those benefits at a given time, you have more opportunities than the poorest elsewhere because of those benefits. Calling that a stereotype is just nonsensical.

Edited September 3, 20177 yr by Qassändra

i've known online munroe for many years now from the sidelines and i think she asks a lot of good questions but i'm confused as to why she ever agreed to model for l'oréal in the first instance

 

sort of self defeating

Your definition of knuckle-dragging extreme right loons is beautiful as it encompasses half of the British press and the current White House staff. Case proven m'lud. Thanks.

 

My definition of extreme-right is clearly rather narrower than yours - I refer only to groupings like neo-Nazis, KKK, BNP, 'Britain First' etc - not anyone who is part of the political Establishment.

 

I'm really not sure what part of this you find so hard to understand. We live in a country and society that is much wealthier for the riches it gained from empire and slavery. Even the poorest in this country are better off than the poorest in most other developed countries without those histories because of the societal benefits (a stronger economy, better infrastructure) that have come from that wealth. Even if you don't necessarily have those benefits at a given time, you have more opportunities than the poorest elsewhere because of those benefits. Calling that a stereotype is just nonsensical.

 

Is it?

 

White people are expected not to make prejudiced statements, and are castigated if/when they do, so why should non-whites be considered for immunity from the same ostracism? The idea that whites 'deserve' prejudice against them for the actions of their ancestors will just perpetuate the cycle of injustice.

 

You really seem completely incapable of understanding that "whites have benefited from racism" is not a 'prejudiced' statement but merely an unambiguous statement of fact akin to saying what a country's GDP is, so I don't know what more I can say on this really. Particularly when you make up quotes like saying whites 'deserve' prejudice against them. Who said that? Where?

Edited September 3, 20177 yr by Qassändra

You really seem completely incapable of understanding that "whites have benefited from racism" is not a 'prejudiced' statement but merely an unambiguous statement of fact akin to saying what a country's GDP is, so I don't know what more I can say on this really.

 

That's not a lot different from saying they benefited from the Romans, or the Vikings, who incidentally both used similar methods to the British Empire.

 

To be fair, Britain *was* one of the first European countries to abolish the slave trade.

 

Particularly when you make up quotes like saying whites 'deserve' prejudice against them. Who said that? Where?

 

I wasn't quoting anyone - I never claimed to be.

My definition of extreme-right is clearly rather narrower than yours - I refer only to groupings like neo-Nazis, KKK, BNP, 'Britain First' etc - not anyone who is part of the political Establishment.

Is it?

 

White people are expected not to make prejudiced statements, and are castigated if/when they do, so why should non-whites be considered for immunity from the same ostracism? The idea that whites 'deserve' prejudice against them for the actions of their ancestors will just perpetuate the cycle of injustice.

 

1. You SAID: "But only knuckle-dragging extreme-right loons blame all Muslims for the crimes of a few extremists"

 

So presumably you agree that the statement is wrong and you need to clarify that certain groups who aren't OFFICIAL card-carrying members of far-right groups also hold those views, such as "Muslim-banning" Trump (who clearly DOES take the view that Muslims from countries that he doesn't have property interests in are terrorists, not to mention asserting that cities in the UK are no-go areas due to Muslims) and the UK right-wing press, who push anti-muslim stories (mostly made-up BS) constantly.

 

Alternatively the statement is correct, and so is my assertion that it's a beautiful description of politicians like Trump and Farage (recall his immigrant poster?) who blatantly DO blame all Muslims for the crimes of a few extremists and use that to scare people they wish to manipulate.

 

2. Everybody is subject to the same discrimination law in the UK, whites or non-whites. That some (white people) choose not to prosecute ANYONE who contravenes it is not the fault of non-whites or other whites, that's individuals not doing their job. As others have already said, NOBODY IS SAYING WHITES DESERVE PREJUDICE BECAUSE OF HISTORY. That's your flawed interpretation of the statement "Minorities deserve the SAME rights and opportunities, ESPECIALLY given racist history".

 

You manage to infer statements that aren't there, or alternatively contradict yourself, in one short sentence. I think we are all "100%" in noting a lack of clarity in your statements.