Reverse racism

152 posts / 0 new
Last post
Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Apr 2 2018 23:00
meerov wrote:
And you as liberals are looking for what separates them.

First of all, the only person who have made a liberal argument on this thread is you meerov. Then again, your grasp on some fundamental concepts is, well, lacking. In any case, what you are arguing here is precisely that calling attention to and arguing we should take racism and sexism seriously is "separating" the working class. Just baffling. If you've read your working class history it is precisely the approach you are activating that makes people of colour to not take part in working class movements.

meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Apr 2 2018 23:08

One of the very high points of anarchist organisation was in Spain, and it produced the Mujeres Libres: https://libcom.org/history/separate-equal-mujeres-libres-anarchist-strategy-womens-emancipation
Were they part of that revolutionary movement or are you going to blame them for the demise of anarchism too?

Mujeres Libres rejected both feminism, which they saw as a theory which fought for "equality of women within an existing system of privileges", and the relegation of women to a secondary position within the libertarian movement:

"We are not- and were not then feminists. We were not fighting against men. We did not want to substitute a feminist hierarchy for a masculine one. It's necessary to work, to struggle, together because if we don't we'll never have a social revolution. But we needed our own organisation to struggle for ourselves."
https://www.wsm.ie/story/3131?page=2

They were against woman's separatism and wanted to be a part of a huge movement. What can I say bad? I am not opposed to people of different ethnic or gender groups creating their own structures within the framework of a large United movement. For example, a strike Committee was set up during one of the big strikes of the historic IWW. 24 different ethnic / linguistic groups of workers elected their delegates there. So what? Importantly, that they fought for common goal.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Apr 2 2018 23:25
Quote:
Mujeres Libres rejected both feminism, which they saw as a theory which fought for "equality of women within an existing system of privileges", and the relegation of women to a secondary position within the libertarian movement:

"We are not- and were not then feminists. We were not fighting against men. We did not want to substitute a feminist hierarchy for a masculine one. It's necessary to work, to struggle, together because if we don't we'll never have a social revolution. But we needed our own organisation to struggle for ourselves."
https://www.wsm.ie/story/3131?page=2

So, they rejected what today is known as liberal feminism, but advocated a different type of feminism which today may go under the name anarca-feminism or something like that. I mean, you really have to be misreading things in the worst possible way to say that of all types of historical organizations the Mujeres Liberes were not feminist.

meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Apr 2 2018 23:45

Mike Harman
ffs just read some history please.

https://libcom.org/library/why-moors-help-franco

I absolutely agree that CNT ignored this problem Moroccans. In General, CNT was involved in a bad story and started to cooperate with the government as a Junior partner. The dirty idea of Spanish Republic and Popular Front has no justification whatsoever. Within the framework of this policy, CNT has committed many erroneous actions, including ignoring the problems of colonies, failure to help Jews (if I'm not mistaken, Mitchell Sadman writes about it) and much more.

Perhaps internationalism is never absolute, especially when it relates to CNT.

However, to say that real anarchist or revolutionary syndicalist movements were alien to non-Europeans or ethnic minoritys at the beginning of the 20th century that means to say an absolutely untrue.

There is not even a subject of discussion here - Spanish-Americans and African-Americans participated in the work of IWW, which spread its network in both Americas, Brazil was one of the most important centers of anarchism, along with Japan and Korea.

Armies of peasants-anarchists fought against the whites, and then against the Bolsheviks in the forests of Siberia including even women's guerrilla groups and even special women's governance structures (though this was rare).

Tens of thousands of Japanese anarchists discovered the ideas and dreams of Russian-European Kropotkin, and created a unique movement based on the fusion of local traditions of the rural community, the labor movement and European ideas of anarchism.

If modern anarchists could mobilize hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans, African-Americans, Koreans and Japanese workers and pesants, only then modern anarchists would rise to this level of internationalism.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Apr 2 2018 23:54
Quote:
However, to say that real anarchist or revolutionary syndicalist movements were alien to non-Europeans or ethnic minoritys at the beginning of the 20th century that means to say an absolutely untrue.

Nobody has said this because everyone is more or less referring to the present. And while the IWW was really good at being a multicultural union (IIRC in part because they organized sailors), at the same time there were other revolutionary unions that did not organize non-whites.

meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Apr 3 2018 00:04


Khawaga
So, they rejected what today is known as liberal feminism, but advocated a different type of feminism which today may go under the name anarca-feminism or something like that. I mean, you really have to be misreading things in the worst possible way to say that of all types of historical organizations the Mujeres Liberes were not feminist.

Mujeres Liberes never advocated any type of feminism: this is just a fact. They rejected it.

I have no idea who you call anarcho-feminist today, I've seen very different people who call themselves that name. About some I can say they were very good comrades who advocated cooperation with men, others were separatists who hated men. At the same time, they had very different ideas. Finally, I met women-anarchists who totaly rejected feminism todey.

In any case, you have lost border illegally including the dead heroes of the women's movement of Spain, somewhere they have never been. I don't think you have a right to do that, man. It looks like sexism. No means No, man. wink Leave these women alone, they can't be part of what they've never seen or analyzed.

But it's not the main point. I think you just have a very obvious problem with the logic. Even if they called themselves feminists, it wouldn't change anything in my argument. I said:

"They were against woman's separatism and wanted to be a part of a huge movement. I am not opposed to people of different ethnic or gender groups creating their own structures within the framework of a large United movement. For example, a strike Committee was set up during one of the big strikes of the historic IWW. 24 different ethnic / linguistic groups of workers elected their delegates there. So what? Importantly, that they fought for common goal."

Hieronymous's picture
Hieronymous
Offline
Joined: 27-07-07
Apr 3 2018 00:21
meerov21 wrote:
Well, 100 years ago, anarchists and real revolutionary syndicalists had a huge influence in Japan, Korea, and Brazil, and people of all colors cooperated with them.

Your fictions are what are currently called “alternative facts” or “fake news.”

The Koreans 100 years ago were under the yoke of Japanese imperial occupation, having just been forced out of 5 centuries of isolation — the Chosun Dynasty — that gave them the nickname “the Hermit Kingdom.” Korean anarchists were social revolutionaries in name only. They were hardcore nationalists. They held many reactionary ideas, much like you Meerov21. They were called anarchist for one simple reason: they practiced propaganda by deed, and assassinated officials of the occupying Japanese forces in the name of patriotism. Many were bourgeois leaders of the Korean government in exile in Shanghai. They were not anti-authoritarians and were clearly not internationalists.

meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Apr 3 2018 00:19

Me: However, to say that real anarchist or revolutionary syndicalist movements were alien to non-Europeans or ethnic minoritys at the beginning of the 20th century that means to say an absolutely untrue.


Khawaga Nobody has said this because everyone is more or less referring to the present. And while the IWW was really good at being a multicultural union (IIRC in part because they organized sailors), at the same time there were other revolutionary unions that did not organize non-whites.

But you said:

Fun fact: from many people of colour, indigenous folks, and women, anarchism or the left never was a socially revolutionary movement because it could never account for their experiences.

In fact, anarchists and revolutionary syndicalists of the early 20th century, including hundreds of thousands of non-Europeans, but about modern anarchists, I can not say that;) That anarchism and revolutionary syndicalism of the early 20th century were just much more international simply in fact of their work.

By the way, what anarchist and revolutionary syndicalist organizations did not take "non-whites"?

And Who are "non-whites"? I was born in Russia, but looks like an Arab, my grandmother has roots among the Jews of Spain, as well as some minority of the Ashkenaz Jews. Am I white or not? I'm not that skilled about "race", so you explain it to me.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Apr 3 2018 00:23
meerov21 wrote:
"They were against woman's separatism and wanted to be a part of a huge movement. I am not opposed to people of different ethnic or gender groups creating their own structures within the framework of a large United movement. For example, a strike Committee was set up during one of the big strikes of the historic IWW. 24 different ethnic / linguistic groups of workers elected their delegates there. So what? Importantly, that they fought for common goal."

i'm not sure how you think any of that makes them opposed to feminism?

meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Apr 3 2018 00:55

Me: Well, 100 years ago, anarchists and real revolutionary syndicalists had a huge influence in Japan, Korea, and Brazil, and people of all colors cooperated with them.

Hieronymous
Your fictions are what are currently called “alternative facts” or “fake news.”
The Koreans 100 years ago were under the yoke of Japanese imperial occupation, having just been forced out of 5 centuries of isolation — the Chosun Dynasty — that gave them the nickname “the Hermit Kingdom.” Korean anarchists were social revolutionaries in name only. They were hardcore nationalists.

WelI, l didn't know you are a specialist in Korean anarchism. wink Personally, I read in Russian about the history of the Korean anarchists: it is wrriten that they were supporters of the self-management of workers and at the same time participants of the national liberation struggle. There are debate among historians and anarchists, some criticize them strongly, then others researchers consider they nevertheless were anarchists. Kim Seung-Kook is a Professor of sociology at Busan National University and previously served as President of the Korean sociological Association. He is a graduate of Seoul National University and defended his doctorate in the United States. Kim Seung-Kook is a leader of the Korean society for research on anarchism. He believes that Korean anarchists, though they were in the minority, have made an "innovative contribution to the common struggle and will help today's generation to direct people to the struggle against the state machine".
http://www.libfront.org/2015/korean-anarchists-third-way

But even if I am wrong about Korean anarchists, that does not negate my rightness in General, as the anarchists and revolutionary syndicalists of the early 20th century had a powerful influence among non-Europeans. But modern anarchists do not have such a huge influence among non-Europeans.

They held many reactionary ideas, much like you Meerov21.

I hope you like it:
https://www.facebook.com/YourPageIsFunny/videos/10155691381783386/?fref=mentions

I'm sorry if I hurt your triggers. Just if people have several million triggers at once, it's a little hard to talk to them. But I try.

meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Apr 3 2018 00:50

radicalgraffiti
i'm not sure how you think any of that makes them opposed to feminism?

Whom? Mujeres Libres? Because they said it!

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Apr 3 2018 00:53

Given that Meerov clearly doesn't understand what racism is, or the history of radical movements, it may be a bit of a reach to expect him to get a good grasp of feminism either. Or anarchism, for that matter.

Hats of to the people on this thread with far more patience than I have, who have addressed his points with very straightforward and coherent arguments, including examples and citations. He's obviously not prepared to digest your points and discuss in good faith.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Apr 3 2018 00:54
meerov21 wrote:
radicalgraffiti
i'm not sure how you think any of that makes them opposed to feminism?

Whom? Mujeres Libres? Because they said it!

i also saw an interview with an Spanish anarchist who said they where pacifists too...

nice job making fun of people with ptsd btw

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Apr 3 2018 00:55

PS. Anyone who make "hurts your triggers" jokes is clearly an ass, taking that straight from the joke book of right wingers, unsurprisingly though given that the whole reverse racism argument is a stupid right wing trope too.

meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Apr 3 2018 01:02

radicalgraffiti
i also saw an interview with an Spanish anarchist who said they where pacifists too...nice job making fun of people with ptsd btw

For the arguments I use, it does not matter whether they were feminists or not. However, fact is fact, historical Mujeres Libres said it:

"We are not- and were not then feminists. We were not fighting against men. We did not want to substitute a feminist hierarchy for a masculine one. It's necessary to work, to struggle, together because if we don't we'll never have a social revolution. But we needed our own organisation to struggle for ourselves."
https://www.wsm.ie/story/3131?page=2

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Apr 3 2018 10:41
meerov21 wrote:
Of course, I do not call for ignoring the experiences of racial discrimination or discrimination against women. No one from the participants of historical socio-revolutionary movements denied this experience. Just those people focused on what unites workers. And you as liberals are looking for what separates them.
meerov21 wrote:
I absolutely agree that CNT ignored this problem Moroccans. In General, CNT was involved in a bad story and started to cooperate with the government as a Junior partner. The dirty idea of Spanish Republic and Popular Front has no justification whatsoever. Within the framework of this policy, CNT has committed many erroneous actions, including ignoring the problems of colonies, failure to help Jews (if I'm not mistaken, Mitchell Sadman writes about it) and much more.

But "no-one from the participants of historical socio-revolutionary movements denied this experience [..] of racial discrimination or discrimination against women".

meerov21 wrote:
However, to say that real anarchist or revolutionary syndicalist movements were alien to non-Europeans or ethnic minoritys at the beginning of the 20th century that means to say an absolutely untrue.

No one said that though, that's a fabrication by you.

What Khawaga said was this:

Khawaga wrote:
Fun fact: from many people of colour, indigenous folks, and women, anarchism or the left never was a socially revolutionary movement because it could never account for their experiences.

Did the CNT account for the experiences of Moroccans? No it did not. Are there enough Moroccans to counts as 'many people of colour'? Certainly there are. Yet you dismiss the original statement as untrue and 'liberal' - you can only do this by mischaracterising what people are actually saying.

meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Apr 3 2018 11:14

Historical Real Spanish CNT was a part of the world anarcho-syndicalist international. It dreamed of an international social revolution with workers from Europe and other continents. In addition, it included people from many regions of Spain. Therefore, it would be totally wrong to say that they ignored the problems of national minorities.

However, I accepted your amendment-indeed, in the case of CNT, they ignored the problems of the Moroccan and possibly the Jewish people. As I wrote above, there is no perfect internationalism in the world.

Me: However, to say that real anarchist or revolutionary syndicalist movements were alien to non-Europeans or ethnic minoritys at the beginning of the 20th century that means to say an absolutely untrue.

Mike Harman
No one said that though, that's a fabrication by you.
What Khawaga said was this:

Khawaga wrote:
Fun fact: from many people of colour, indigenous folks, and women, anarchism or the left never was a socially revolutionary movement because it could never account for their experiences.

Where is the fabrication? This was said in a very specific context - the context of the opposition of historical anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists to the present. It was meant that those anarchists were not real internationalists or were unaware of the problems of minorities or "color". But in fact, they were more internationalists than Khawaja followers. When you guys (and women), a little bit depart from your context and begin to speak something understandable to the peoples of Japan and Korea, China and Uruguay, Brasilia and Argentina, to the Spanish-Americans and African-Americans, and attract the sympathy and interest of the hundreds of thousands non-Europeans and "color" as historical anarchists have done, then we'll talk about your internationalism in comparison with the internationalism of the historical anarhists. In the meantime, my anarchist Arab friends can't communicate with you, believing that it is impossible to communicate with those who have a million triggers and taboos - more taboos than Salafis have.

Uncreative's picture
Uncreative
Offline
Joined: 11-10-09
Apr 3 2018 11:36
meerov21 wrote:
For the arguments I use, it does not matter whether they were feminists or not. However, fact is fact, historical Mujeres Libres said it:

"We are not- and were not then feminists. We were not fighting against men. We did not want to substitute a feminist hierarchy for a masculine one. It's necessary to work, to struggle, together because if we don't we'll never have a social revolution. But we needed our own organisation to struggle for ourselves."

So in that quote (which fwiw sounds like someones after-the-fact reminiscence, rather than an official policy), they define feminism as "fighting against men" and "substituting a feminist hierarchy for a masculine one", which is in line with the other claim in the wsm link that they viewed feminism as fighting for "equality of women within an existing system of privileges". Fair enough to oppose those things, and if the word you use to describe those things is "feminism", then it makes sense to say you oppose feminism as a shorthand for saying you oppose those things.

I suppose the question is: is feminism solely used to refer to "fighting against men" to "substitute a feminist hierarchy for a masculine one" in "an existing system of priledges"? If not, then you can't use that quote to dismiss Mujeres Libres as being feminist. Which also makes me wonder if that is what you think feminism is, Meerov?

meerov21 wrote:
those people focused on what unites workers. And you as liberals are looking for what separates them.

Looking around, workers are separated, not united. We need to be united. Might be useful to understand what separates us then, hey? How you're going to understand what things separate workers without looking for them is beyond me though.

commieprincess's picture
commieprincess
Offline
Joined: 26-08-07
Apr 3 2018 16:54

Brilliant post, Uncreative smile

Just to reiterate what Fleur said - thanks to posters who can be arsed to respond to this embarrassing bollocks, I’m so glad people aren’t just letting it sit there unchallenged.

dark_ether's picture
dark_ether
Offline
Joined: 12-09-12
Apr 5 2018 01:14

Wow, people get really hung up on semantics. Anyhow, this 2 1/2 minute video shows a muslim admitting reverse racism could be a problem and explaining how and why https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw_mRaIHb-M

if you don't have two and a half minutes, i guess you can sum it up with this quote "“If a white man wants to lynch me, that's his problem. If he's got the power to lynch me, that's my problem. Racism is not a question of attitude; it's a question of power." - Stokely Carmichael

As in, you wanna call prejudice against white people racism? cool, but like, it's not the same issue as racism by white people, cuz in almost all cases it's the white people who hold the power. Certainly on an instituional, structural and global sense, which is sorta important.
So either its 'racism, but its not really as much as problem as other racism, which sorta waters down the meaning of racism' or we stick to calling it 'prejudice/bigotry' and define racism as combination of this prejudice and power. power from capitalism, as the quote continues "Thus, if you're anti-racist, whether you know it or not, you must be anti-capitalist. The power for racism, the power for sexism, comes from capitalism, not an attitude.”

jolasmo
Offline
Joined: 25-12-11
Apr 6 2018 15:56

Am I the only one who finds meerov21's inability to locate the "quote" button almost as grating as their godawful reactionary politics? It's hard enough keeping up with their Gish Gallop through all the most tedious anti-IDpol talking points the internet has to offer without also not being able to tell what they're saying and what they're quoting half the time.

Anyway, I feel like more or less all that needs to be said has been said at this point. At the end of the day, it all comes down to this:

meerov21 wrote:
those people focused on what unites workers. And you as liberals are looking for what separates them.

There you have it, the non identity-politics, non liberal, non wishy washy namby pamby snowflake response to the centuries-old divisions that generations of white supremacy and patriarchy have sown amongst the working class. Let's just focus on what unites us. We are all the same deep down. Why can't we all just get along?

The simple reality is that those who carp and complain endlessly about "liberal identity politics" on the left generally have only the most paper-thin understanding of how things like gender and race actually operate in an advanced capitalist society. Indeed, they view any attempt to seriously analyse such questions as inherently suspect and reactionary. The answer, in meerov21's view, appears to be to refuse to think about the problem in the hopes that if we all ignore it it will go away. This is farcical. By way of analogy, it's the equivalent of the well-to-do hippy telling the minimum-wage worker that asking for higher pay is a Bad Thing because money is actually, like, totally bogus man and we should all just, like, love one another. It's not that we don't want to overcome the divisions within the deeply fractured 21st century global proletariat - it's just that doing so requires more that just a little goodwill and an exhortation to "unity".

What strikes me most of all is how this whole argument is so drenched in the politics of nostalgia. People like meerov21 pine ceaselessly for the Good Old Days of the worker's movement, the leftist movement, the anarchist movement etc. based on an entirely rose-tinted view of what those movements were like and a frankly nonsensical account of what happened to them. Anarchism as a social movement was in dire straits long before it came to be associated with the contemporary anti-racist and feminist arguments that meerov21 is attacking here. This isn't an argument based in a real critical understanding of history. It's not even based in reality. It seems to me to arise from an existential crisis at confronting the modern world in all it's contradictions and complexities, and a desire to return to the simple doctrines and dogmas of yesteryear. As communists and anarchists we must have no truck with such indulgences.

dark_ether's picture
dark_ether
Offline
Joined: 12-09-12
Apr 6 2018 19:24
jolasmo wrote:
It's not that we don't want to overcome the divisions within the deeply fractured 21st century global proletariat - it's just that doing so requires more that just a little goodwill and an exhortation to "unity".

your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter

meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Apr 7 2018 18:07

People like meerov21 pine ceaselessly for the Good Old Days of the worker's movement, the leftist movement, the anarchist movement etc. based on an entirely rose-tinted view of what those movements were like and a frankly nonsensical account of what happened to them. Anarchism as a social movement was in dire straits long before it came to be associated with the contemporary anti-racist and feminist arguments that meerov21 is attacking here. This isn't an argument based in a real critical understanding of history. It's not even based in reality. It seems to me to arise from an existential crisis at confronting the modern world in all it's contradictions and complexities, and a desire to return to the simple doctrines and dogmas of yesteryear. As communists and anarchists we must have no truck with such indulgences.

First, in history, all radical doctrines that prevail have been simple and accessible to all. Such a doctrine, for example, was Christianity, which addressed primarily to poor people with ideas of spiritual salvation, universal love and mutual aid and spoke in a simple and very understandable language. The ideological doctrine that hopes to elevate the majority of workers to a social revolution and change the entire planet should be based on a few very simple ideas. And first of all, it is the idea of unity of all workers in the social revolution and the liberal communitarian society.

Secondly I wrote several times that I do not deny then other things being equal white workers in the US may have a slightly better position than black, and that black American lives better than a worker in tropical Africa. So what? This may be important for understanding the multilayered reality of capitalism. But it is unacceptable to offend white workers and the poor by saying like "white man is responsible for all the evil in the world", and you know perfectly well how often many anarchists use such racist rhetoric (can be: not on this forum).

jolasmo
Offline
Joined: 25-12-11
Apr 7 2018 23:55
meerov21 wrote:
other things being equal white workers in the US may have a slightly better position than black, and that black American lives better than a worker in tropical Africa. So what? This may be important for understanding the multilayered reality of capitalism. But it is unacceptable to offend white workers

So even meerov21 has to admit that white workers are ("slightly") privileged with respect to black workers. But "so what?" amirite? Who gives a shit if white workers have privileges? Musn't offend them. They're the important ones after all. I mean, they represent a vanishingly small fraction of the worldwide proletariat, but they're like, super important. Not like those black workers. They need to learn their fucking place. Right guys?

meerov21 wrote:
"white man is responsible for all the evil in the world", and you know perfectly well how often many anarchists use such racist rhetoric

OK meerov21, how about this, you point me to a single instance of an actual anarchist (i.e. not a Labour Party adviser, not a journo for the Independent) making such an argument, and I'll explain to you why it is that anarchists slagging off white people is approximately a thousand times less relevant to the progress of the class struggle and the status of the anarchist "movement" in general than the generations of anti-black racism that provoke such hyperbole. Until and unless you can actually produce any kind of source to back up your persistent claims about what "we all know perfectly well" then I'll continue to assume that you have no interest in actually addressing the arguments of anarchists who care about white supremacy, and are actually just here to whine and moan about how offended you are by other people talking about things that aren't important to you personally.

meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Apr 8 2018 10:33

OK meerov21, how about this, you point me to a single instance of an actual anarchist (i.e. not a Labour Party adviser, not a journo for the Independent) making such an argument, and I'll explain to you why it is that anarchists slagging off white people is approximately a thousand times less relevant to the progress of the class struggle and the status of the anarchist "movement" in general than the generations of anti-black racism that provoke such hyperbole. Until and unless you can actually produce any kind of source to back up your persistent claims about what "we all know perfectly well" then I'll continue to assume that you have no interest in actually addressing the arguments of anarchists who care about white supremacy, and are actually just here to whine and moan about how offended you are by other people talking about things that aren't important to you personally.

First I already wrote:

Among black Americans, 31% think most blacks are racist, while 24% consider most whites racist and 15% view most Hispanics that way.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/july_2013/more_americans_view_blacks_as_racist_than_whites_hispanics

As for the statistics on anarchists, I do not have it, but the fact that many modern anarchists consider the generalized "white man" guilty of all the troubles of the world, it is easy to see, after talking to people in anarchist forums.

Second:
No I do not belong to the left "culture of the offended" so I do not think that racists and anti-Semites can offend me personally. Many people, black and white, have racist prejudices and I think anarchists should work with that and convince them that they are wrong. But at the same time, some ideological racist who says all the evil in the world is in a "white man" or a "Jew" or a "black man", there's something like an animal to me. And the animal can't insult me.

P.S.
me: "And first of all, it is the idea of unity of all workers in the social revolution and the liberal communitarian society."- I meant libertarian, not liberal.

Uncreative's picture
Uncreative
Offline
Joined: 11-10-09
Apr 8 2018 11:42
meerov21 wrote:
Among black Americans, 31% think most blacks are racist, while 24% consider most whites racist and 15% view most Hispanics that way.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/july_2013/more_americans_view_blacks_as_racist_than_whites_hispanics

Relevant. Sort of.

Turns out that one survey revealed that while 59% of Americans support letting "homosexuals" serve in the military, 70% are in favour of letting "gays and lesbians" serve in the military. I suppose what this tells us is that one random poll demonstrates very little in itself, and that its quite easy to manipulate the results to be how you want.

meerov21 wrote:
As for the statistics on anarchists, I do not have it, but the fact that many modern anarchists consider the generalized "white man" guilty of all the troubles of the world, it is easy to see, after talking to people in anarchist forums.

Which anarchist forums? Because this is a thread full of anarchists telling you this isn't what modern anarchists think, based on our opinions and the opinions of all the anarchists we know.

jolasmo
Offline
Joined: 25-12-11
Apr 8 2018 16:10
meerov21 wrote:
"And first of all, it is the idea of unity of all workers in the social revolution and the liberal communitarian society."- I meant libertarian, not liberal.

I believe that's known as a Freudian slip.

meerov21 wrote:
First I already wrote:

Among black Americans, 31% think most blacks are racist, while 24% consider most whites racist and 15% view most Hispanics that way.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/july_2013/more_americans_view_blacks_as_racist_than_whites_hispanics

As for the statistics on anarchists, I do not have it, but the fact that many modern anarchists consider the generalized "white man" guilty of all the troubles of the world, it is easy to see, after talking to people in anarchist forums.

So when it comes down to it, all meerov21 can come up with to back up their argument is one poll from the right-wing US polling company Rasmussen Reports. This poll doesn't ask any questions about anarchism and nor does it actually tell us anything about "reverse racism" per se. Firstly because, well, it's just a poll. All it tells us is that a certain percentage of people *think* black people are racist, not that they actually are racist. (If a poll showed that 52% of people believe the Earth is flat, that wouldn't make it so.) Secondly the poll simply asked whether people thought black people are racist, not whether people thought black people were "reverse racist" against white people. Those responding that yes, they did think black people were racist, could have meant prejudice against white people from black communities, *or* they could have meant internalised racism against other black people within those communities, or they could have meant racism towards other marginalised groups (both white and non-white) e.g. Hispanics, Jews, Native Americans, or Asians. We don't know because the poll didn't ask.

Now just to be clear even if there was compelling evidence for widespread anti-white prejudice amongst black folks in the US or elsewhere, I don't think this would be grounds for us as anarchists dropping anti-racist rhetoric or distancing ourselves from criticism of white supremacy. But meerov21 actually hasn't shown anything of the sort. They have no real evidence for anti-white sentiment being particularly widespread in the anarchist movement or even for its existence in broader society. All they have is vague assertions that this a problem that "we all know" and "is easy to see" - not an article from an anarchist author making these claims, not a link to another forum discussion, not a screenshot from social media, nothing. There is absolutely nothing of substance to respond to here.

meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Apr 12 2018 14:43

First I already wrote:

Among black Americans, 31% think most blacks are racist, while 24% consider most whites racist and 15% view most Hispanics that way.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/july_2013/more_americans_view_blacks_as_racist_than_whites_hispanics

jolasmo So when it comes down to it, all meerov21 can come up with to back up their argument is one poll from the right-wing US polling company Rasmussen Reports.

Israeli historian Ilan Pape, who investigated the Zionists murders of palestinians in the village of Tantura, was a left-wing supporter of Israel's Stalinist Communist party. And when the Zionists argued with him, they cited this fact. But such arguments do not prove anything. Many scientists and experts are left - and right- wing authoritarians.

Anarchism is a movement that fights against the left wing and the right wing of the system. So that is not the reason why anarchists cannot refer to researchers. After all, most historians and sociologists have political views that are not anarchist, so what?

P. S. I hope to translate and publish excerpts from article of my friend American-Russian-Jewish journalist Michael Dorfman on the recent protests in American universities. He was there and wrote that it was an outbreak of black racism and anti-Semitism with the support of the left.

me "And first of all, it is the idea of unity of all workers in the social revolution and the liberal communitarian society."- I meant libertarian, not liberal.

jolasmo .I believe that's known as a Freudian slip.

I believe if you want to talk about Freud and your mom on some personal, you should find a specialist - therapist . I won't be able to help you.

meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Apr 12 2018 16:01

Fleur
PS. Anyone who make "hurts your triggers" jokes is clearly an ass, taking that straight from the joke book of right wingers, unsurprisingly though given that the whole reverse racism argument is a stupid right wing trope too.

I am wondering what I should do in the case when people on this forum behave in this way. He's trying to insult me. I mean, what should I say in return? Shoud i Use insults back? Why does the moderator allow insulting the participants of the discussion? I'm waiting for this man's apology.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Apr 12 2018 16:26

He has nothing to apologize for, your opinions are reactionary, ignorant and bigoted.

BTW, that Facebook video wasn't funny, it's just some half assed joke which mocks people with PTSD. This is also something which is reactionary, ignorant and bigoted.

Rule of thumb - if people are making jokes about "snowflakes" being "triggered" then they are generally right wingers or some other kind of reactionary, ignorant and bigoted person . Going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't know this but generally, if you don't know where a meme comes from, don't use it.