What are some obvious racist and chauvinist things that are totally normalized?
What are some obvious racist and chauvinist things that are totally normalized?
Things that are so obvious and ingrained that no one even thinks about them.
Here’s a few:
All US americans can go to Mexico EASILY. You’re supposed to have a passport but you don’t even need one (for car/foot crossing). Versus, it’s really hard for Mexicans, who aren’t wealthy, to secure a VISA to enter the US. I’m sure there are corollaries in other geo-regions.
Another one is wealthy countries having access to vaccines far ahead of “poor” countries.
In US, we might pay lip service to equal child-hood education but most of the funding pulls from local taxes so some kids might receive ~$10000 in spending while another receives $2000. I’m not looking it up at the moment, but I’m SURE there are strong racial stratas.
You're viewing part of a thread.
since you're confused let's trace the entire context of the conversation from the thread title down to here.
Question: What are some obvious racist and chauvinist things that are totally normalized?
Answer (from wombat): Treating the usian "founding fathers" as democracy-loving freedom fighters
Statement (from you): I suppose the British considered them to be rebels, insurrectionists, or maybe even terrorists. It's all a matter of perspective isn't it?
Question (from me): if I hold you in chains and whip you for not picking cotton fast enough for me, would that just be a "matter of perspective" you smug liberal?
Since the hegemonic perspective of the founding fathers in the US is that they're democracy-loving freedom fighters, it doesn't really matter what the British thought. We're discussing the normalized racism and chauvinism of worshiping a bunch of slave owning proto-bourgeois settler-colonialists. It's not just a matter of perspective. The shit they did to people had real material consequences. Hence my question to you which you didn't answer: if I hold you in chains and whip you for not picking cotton fast enough for me, would that just be a "matter of perspective" you smug liberal? That is. If you were actually treated by me the way the founding fathers treated people, would it still be this vague "matter of perspective" or would you be justified in despising me?
If I were a slave, I would probably be less concerned about who exactly is holding the whip, and more so the fact that I was getting whipped. Whether the colonists were considered terrorists or some kind of freedom fighters would be largely irrelevant to me in that case, despite that perspective mattering a great deal to the rest of the world at the time and even still to this day.
I would probably be less concerned about who exactly is holding the whip, and more so the fact that I was getting whipped
John Brown, Nat Turner, and The Haitian revolutionaries would tell you that those two concerns are identical since the latter concern provides you with your target in regards to how to bring about a real material change in the former concern. If you are a slave, and you want to stop being whipped, you run away. But if you want everyone else to stop getting whipped as well, you fight the slave owners. That is how slavery ended in the United States after all. War with the slave power.
So do you think that slavery would have ended sooner if the American revolution never happened? Do you think there was any net benefit to humanity as a result of the American revolution? Is it possible for good men to do bad things or does bad things make them bad people?
So do you think that slavery would have ended sooner if the American revolution never happened?
Considering the British Crown ended slavery in its colonies in 1833, a full 3 decades before an independent America ended slavery with a civil war? Yes! But that's neither here nor there. I'm not arguing nor have I argued against the American "revolution," though I will say it was a bourgeois nationalist independence struggle waged by the colonial ruling class against the ruling class in the mother country because the ruling class in the mother country taxed the commercial profits of the ruling class in the colony too much and wouldn't let them expand west against indigenous people as quickly as they wanted to. That's not really a "revolution." War of Independence is a lot more accurate. What happened in Haiti in the 1790s and 1800s was a revolution, and it involved the oppressed class, the slaves, rising up against the ruling class, their masters. Interestingly the American "revolutionaries" for all their talk of "freedom" and "liberty" and "revolution" and "refreshing the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Jefferson quote) never supported that revolution. In fact they were highly in favor of crushing it (along with Daniel Shay's rebellion), because they were slave owners. And they were in favor of forcing that enslaved people to pay reparations, amounting to most of their annual national GDP, to their former masters, for the better part of 2 centuries. A tax far more tyrannical and impoverishing than anything the British leveled against the likes of the American tobacco planters. And now they are blamed for being poor and underdeveloped despite those absymal economic conditions that was enforced by America and France jointly. Two "democracies" shaking hands as they make sure a state of liberated slaves is in permanent debt.... very interesting how these things are framed.
Do you think there was any net benefit to humanity as a result of the American revolution?
Ask an indigenous American that question. No. In general I don't think it was a "net benefit" to humanity. And I'm an American. I live here. I am part indigenous but being indigenous is more about culture than blood quantum. I wasn't raised in that culture, which was decimated long before I was born.
Is it possible for good men to do bad things or does bad things make them bad people?
Yes it's possible for good men to do bad things and vice versa. But I don't think they were good men in the first place. I think they were bourgeois slave owners who liked to wax poetic about "Freedom" and "Liberty" as though they were the ones who invented these concepts. That's a big part of the American civil religion. The idea that these men somehow invented the representative republican form of government. Like it was some kind of innovation they brought to the table. Their "net benefit to humanity" as you said earlier. But they didn't invent that. They were a bunch of Rome revivalists attempting to resurrect ideas from classical antiquity, which is why America loves the fasces and the marble statues and the ionic columns and the latin phrase mongering. And even if they had somehow invented these concepts, they were still realizing these concepts in a completely hypocritical and incomplete way that was obvious to every abolitionist even back then.
While there is certainly some truth to what you are saying, I feel that your interpretation of events and motivations is way too cynical. But regardless, it's pretty tough to argue that the US has not provided a net gain to humanity, given the advancements in technology, medicine, arts, and so on that could not have occurred in a different society.
I feel that your interpretation of events and motivations is way too cynical.
I certainly don't have any good reason to feel optimistic about the past, present, or future of this imperialist, settler-colonial, capitalist nation which would rather start WW3 than give up a shred of its post WW2 hegemony.
given the advancements in technology, medicine, arts, and so on that could not have occurred in a different society.
What supernatural qualities does the United States have such that, were it removed from history, a bunch of "technology, medicine, arts and so on" would have never been invented? Take the nuclear bomb for example. An American invention. Had America never existed, it still would have been invented, eventually, just somewhere else. Splitting the atom would have occurred to some physicist eventually. Using it as a weapon would have occurred eventually. I'm a staunch materialist about these things. America is just a geopolitical construct. Everything invented in America, by Americans, could have been invented somewhere else, by someone else, under similar circumstances. Technology comes about because a need/desire for it arises, and the materials to create it are available. Not because of the supernatural qualities of the nation.
Oh yes, and there'd be a whole lot less ignorance like this because a whole lot more settler bastards would've been turned into mulch about a hundred-fifty years sooner, with less destruction of the Black and Indigenous. There was no net benefit to humanity; only to the coinpurses of British nobility who were sick of being taxed by their crown.
real shit JAQoffs like this only make me think that neither John Brown nor General Sherman went NEARLY far enough.
It's pretty hard to predict an alternate future starting so far back, without civilizations moving around, but even that's a meaningless question because native populations were genociding each other before the Europeans ever got involved. Black culture as we know it today wouldn't exist. Instead it would have grown from entirely different roots in Africa and would probably look nothing like it does today in America. Instead it would probably be closer to the various black cultures we see today in Africa. Jazz was invented in America and heavily influenced by black people, rap music and so many other things are uniquely American and created or shaped by black Americans. Without any black people in America today it would be different on so many levels that it's impossible to comprehend.
native populations were genociding each other before the Europeans ever got involved.
whewwwwwww chile do you smell that caucazoid apologia? who let this settler (try to) cook???
You don't think natives killed each other, enslaved other tribes, or genocided them? Do you believe that white people are inherently and uniquely evil?
I don't discuss geopolitics or world history with people who talk like settlers; move along, thank you. You don't want my answer to that JAQoff second question, either. 🤓 ass
If the guy whipping me was deified and seen as a paragon of a man I'd be fucking livid
Sometimes it's more about what that person symbolizes. Take George Floyd for instance. By almost any metric he was not a good person, but he didn't deserve to die, and the way that he died became a symbol, a representation of an entire people who have seen injustice at the hands of the police. George Floyd is practically a saint in the eyes of many, despite all his flaws as a person. So why not the founding fathers?
The founding fathers owned people. Bought and sold them. Denied them basic comforts and dignities. Bred them and then tore apart their families. Raped them and brutalized them.
They engaged in the genocide of native americans. Killing as many as they could and displacing the rest. All so that they could move lines on a map.
To compare these monsters to the progeny of their atrocities is racist. It is unquestionably cruel and unfeeling. Know that I have no respect for you. Know that if I learned we shared any opinion it would cause me to question it.
You want me to ignore all this for America? The country that orchestrated the genocide of native americans? The country that built its bones with the flesh of black people? The primary inspiration for Nazi Germany? The warmongers behind the korean and vietnam war? The country that supported and enabled genocides in bangladesh and indonesia? The country that invaded iraq for oil money? The country that is currently engaged in genocides in both palestine and the congo?
This is why countries and causes all over the world use 18 year olds to fight their wars, because they are like you and can dehumanize anyone not of their tribe, where enemies are defined simply by what tribe they belong to. Hopefully you will outgrow it someday, because that's more normal for youth, but not healthy for adults.
The only people I dehumanized in that post were slavers. Are you really offended over slavers? Is that worth it to you? George Washington wore dentures made out of the teeth of his slaves, Jefferson was a serial rapist who sold his children into slavery.
You accuse me of tribalism for deriding those who used their race to exploit others. What of their tribalism? Of race and class? Gender? They thought that nobody besides landowning white men should have rights, and you think me hating them for it makes me tribal.
Werent you the guy who said you have no respect for me and if we shared any opinion then it would cause you to question that opinion? Based entirely on my lack of blind hatred for the founding fathers of the United States? Seems like you identified that I wasn't in your tribe and that meant I'm the enemy.
their criticism of the US founding fathers isn't "blind" but is based on the stuff they did, and how it completely contradicted their professed values of freedom and liberty.
Are you making the case that anyone who doesn't view the founding fathers in the same way, who doesn't passionately hate them without consideration of any good they accomplished, is therefore wrong about everything and incapable of having acceptable opinions on other topics? That sounds like tribalism and is what I was responding to. I mean, if you tell me straight up that my every opinion is wrong and advertise that you have no intention and feel no obligation to have a good faith discussion, then that makes you an extremist, a fanatic, and further dialog is pointless. I enjoy the discussion and challenge engaging with different views, but when my comments get deleted after being personally attacked, then the discussion has probably run it's course.
passionately hate them without consideration of any good they accomplished
this is your characterization. I never said "I HATE THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND REFUSE TO CONSIDER ANYTHING ABOUT THEM AAAAAAAAAAAA."
No. I have carefully considered their entire legacy. Thanks! I am even able to distinguish between those among them who owned slaves, and those among them who were merely friends with slave owners. I am able to distinguish between George Washington, who put down Shay's rebellion, and Benjamin Franklin, who claimed that making the inhabitants of the Earth whiter was a noble pursuit. I am able to distinguish between John Quincy Adams, who wanted slavery abolished eventually (as long as no slave owners got hurt in the process!) and Thomas Jefferson, who actively sexually assaulted his slaves and sold his own children.
I am able to treat them as individuals, assess their legacies, and come to the conclusion that they were bourgeois nationalists, and to the extent that their cause was "progressive" against the British monarchy, is negated entirely by the genocidal settler-colonial territory they lived on, whose economy was based largely on slavery. I am also able to remember that their primary motivation for independence wasn't opposition to monarchy or love of bourgeois republicanism, but anger at taxation, the highest crime a bourgeois individual can suffer. Having their profits decreased.
is therefore wrong about everything and incapable of having acceptable opinions on other topics?
if you're just going to ask questions about things I never said, it's not going to be a very productive conversation
No. I'm not saying that. But you seem uninterested in directly quoting what I did say and responding to it.
That sounds like tribalism and is what I was responding to.
Define this tribalism which so concerns you. What "tribe" have you determined me to be a member of?
I mean, if you tell me straight up that my every opinion is wrong
good thing I never said that. If you said 2+2= 4 I would tell you you're right. Perhaps you're engaged with multiple people and you're becoming increasingly confused. I recommend re-reading everything I've said to you thus far and thinking a bit harder about it.
that makes you an extremist, a fanatic, and further dialog is pointless.
lol. you have decided I am a bunch of scary things and not worth talking to or listening to. This makes me the extreme one.
Yeah, I don't respect you. You compared a descendant of slaves to a slaver. But I haven't dehumanized you. I don't think you understand what dehumanizing is. I don't have any desire to deny you healthcare, basic needs, safety. I don't want to hurt you physically. I haven't compared you to an animal, or objectified you. My disrespect is based entirely your dehumanization of George Floyd. Something you can control. Something entirely based in your consciousness, something human. Opinions can change.
Please justify the things you say. Nothing you say is supported by any logic or reasoning. Telling me I have "blind" hatred for the founding fathers despite listing the reasons why I do, without addressing those points, is just a waste of time.
How are my political beliefs more tribal than that of the racist and sexist founding fathers?
Are you my enemy? All I did was say I disrespect you for dehumanizing george floyd and excusing slavers. We're just talking. My enemies are defined by material reality, not anger. You could just be another worker. Exploited for the same reasons I am. We could be comrades if you let go of the racism.
Lastly hexbear shows pronouns right next to the username, don't use "guy" when addressing me.
Yeah sorry about that, can't keep track of everyone so I went back to assuming everyone on the internet is a guy. Anyway, do you deny that George Floyd has become larger than life, symbolic and important in a way that is bigger and more pure than he ever was in real life, despite his shortcomings as a person?
Are you going to answer any of my questions?
George Floyd's criminal record is not comparable to owning hundreds of chattel slaves. They are different leagues. The fact that you are trying to force this comparison is deeply racist, just like I said like 5 comments ago.
Even if we entertain your line of thinking I still disagree. George Floyd represents the fight against the white supremacist cruelty of the American police state. The founding fathers represent an America that exists to serve landowning white men. If you want to somehow make that seem like a good thing you have to answer for America's crimes which I listed like 5 comments ago.
George Floyd is practically a saint in the eyes of many, despite all his flaws as a person.
That was never the point of the protests surrounding his death. The point was to call out police brutality. This was true of all the other anti-police brutality protests before George Floyd as well, regardless of whether the victim had a perfect past or not in each case. The press, both local and national, humanizes some victims of state or corporate violence, while demonizing others. Seemingly without noticing, people too often create tiered systems of moral worth by trying to find “the perfect victim.”
This ill advised search for the perfect Christlike victim, and its corollary desire to smear those with less than perfect pasts, makes humanity conditional, further entrenching negative stereotypes and destructive narratives about entire communities. The difference between a victim of systemic injustice who made mistakes in their life and a person who gets deified despite their mistakes is incalculable. The demonization of George Floyd in the wake of his death was IMMEDIATE. The media did not even wait for his blood to be cold before they started digging up his arrest record, etc. The lionization of the founding fathers on the other hand was overwhelming and immediate, in spite of their slave ownership, and an entire American civil mythology was constructed around that image that for many is still considered unquestionable. That's the difference. You're assuming a total symmetry of context between the contemporary victims of systemic violence and the actual ruling class founders of American society.
I don't assume total symmetry, it's just an analogy that mostly fits. They are all imperfect men who are elevated because of what they symbolize to some people.
George Floyd wasn't "elevated." He was killed, and then people protested police brutality after his death because it was just one highly publicized example among countless similar deaths. To the extent that people drew murals of him etc in the wake of those protests has less to do with him being seen as the best dude who ever lived and more to do with combating the demonization that immediately happened in the wake of his death. Since this sort demonization frequently happens. When Botham Jean was shot in his own apartment by an off duty cop who wandered into the wrong apartment and assumed it was her own, the first thing the news did was point out that he had marijuana in his apartment. This kind of demonization is used to minimize the death and imply that they deserved it. So any "elevation" you perceive is in response to that kind of shit. A man like george washington who owns slaves but yaps about Freedom dying comfortably in his bed and being used as a nationalist symbol for 2 centuries is not the same as a man being killed by a cop and then people protesting his death for a few months. You don't "assume" total symmetry? Good. Stop comparing the two things as though they were alike in a way that is relevant to the conversation. And no. It's not an analogy that fits very well at all. You're comparing the civil mythology of a settler colonial nation to a protest movement against police brutality because they both supposedly "elevated imperfect people."