At least not if we follow this guy's logic.



I think he makes a good case for lumping Irish people in with the other "people of colour" he mentions and not with whitey.

Thoughts?

And also everybody else who wasn't involved in colonisation and the slave trade.

Seriously: no, white people don't get to play the race card. No: after centuries of being at the top of the pile, if for a change someone (and someone of a different skin hue!) judges you by first appearances instead of getting to know you first, interviewing you intensively and learning through prolonged and dedicated effort to see the world through your eyes: no, you don't get to dismiss that person out of hand for perceived racism. You do not have that right.

I know plenty of black people who are racist towards Moslems, and it depresses and enrages me.

It wasn't just that we weren't involved in colonisation and the slave trade, we were on the same side of it as all the other nations he mentioned.
Irish people rib the Brits all the time over the stuff they did to us in the past, but when they rib us it's usually offensive crap, just like highlighted in his example of whites making fun of blacks. So we do have a 'race card' of sorts.
Either we're people of colour or there's a flaw in his logic.

The British record in Ireland is shocking. I went to a rather conservative school in England and had no idea. Same with regard to India and everywhere else. That ought to be corrected; but it seems they don't really teach history any more. Not what we would recognise as history.

The course of history is not a story of two teams. It is much more complex, and if you were on one side of one exploitative relationship at some point in history, you may well have been on the other side of another at the same time or later. The poor whites in America's south are a classic example. The Irish are probably another.

Does this mean that when someone says something nasty about me, I can ask, "Is it 'cos I is black?", because my great something grandmother came from Waterford, and various other great somethings also came from Ireland?

chairman bill wrote:Does this mean that when someone says something nasty about me, I can ask, "Is it 'cos I is black?", because my great something grandmother came from Waterford, and various other great somethings also came from Ireland?

I don't know if Uncle Tom, house-Irish count. Can a white person whose great-something-grandmother was black say that?
Racial divides, especially in light of evolution, are confusing to me.

He makes a point which is subject to interpretation.

No one in their right mind could claim that person cannot be racist by having certain characteristic. iirc it was the What can we infer about historical 'race' thread where 'racial' divides were debated like if it was possible to divide scale into concrete segments. So I believe Mr Rahman is using the casual sense of the so-called race as any serious debate over colour of people gets meaningless shortly. People are.

The way I understand it is that despite black people can be racist they are in position to be allowed to slack, in casual sense.

Carlos Mencia does it differently:

part 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7aN_Hl0A94
part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfbhehNlVB0
part 3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsbsH50AYSE

We all know what they talk about and personally I find this funny moralising preferred to philosophical one.

Of course Irish can be racist. Used to live with 4 in London, had to drink Guinness and eat Irish butter, and dunno any English because when we went elsewhere than Irish pub, Sunday church I did not go, it was to troll English football fans.

Evolving wrote:I know plenty of black people who are racist towards Moslems, and it depresses and enrages me.

But muslims were involved in the slave trade so black people can't be racist towards them.

Also Rahman is a muslim so he can't talk for black people cos the slave trade, and muslims were involved in the white slave trade, so he is actually being racist, especially as slaves were taken from countries that weren't involved in colonisation.

Plus of course the only reason there are muslims in the indian sub continent is due to colonisation (and they took slaves from there).

OTOH maybe he's not really talking about racism at all, it's just identity politics.

The big difference between the clips in post #1 and post #8 is the one in post #8 is funny.

The guy in the OP is clearly bitter about certain particulars of history… a history which none of us [now] here are responsible for, nor can do anything to change. Time to get a new act and move on. Frankly, I felt uncomfortable watching his act. I felt that he was just perpetuating archaic prejudices and hurts, and many people will readily buy into such.

Mr Rahman is comedian, actor. Actors tend to pretend to be someone else, but if its clear its clear.

Indeed, we are not responsible for the sins of our fathers. We just happily reap their benefits. Without going to demographic. We do not usually get strip searched at the airport because we look like someone or come from somewhere. We usually use so many resources that if everyone lived like we do its uncertain how long would such resources last. But now I would just be rephrasing the comedians.

Racism is belief. Discrimination is reality for "people of colour". So perhaps they are upset and voice it. I cant say I blame them.

Animavore wrote:At least not if we follow this guy's logic.

I think he makes a good case for lumping Irish people in with the other "people of colour" he mentions and not with whitey.

Thoughts?

I'm not sure how you're reaching the conclusion that Irish people can't be racist? Black people can still be racist against minorities (including their own) so if we consider racism in the historical context, which would include the Irish, then it would simply follow that certain comments made about the Irish can be racist. Which I don't think is overly controversial.

The difficulty here is that obviously the world isn't very simple (I almost said "black and white" but that's probably poor phrasing for the discussion), and so there are different forms of privilege. In this situation, there is privilege associated not only with coming from a dominant white culture but also with looking white. The latter is referred to as "passing privilege" and it just means that for many situations, some members of minority groups can receive privileges granted to the dominant group just by being broadly categorised as belonging to the same group.

To illustrate it, being Irish means that you share some features of oppression with black culture, especially historically like the banning of your language in schools, stereotypes of your intelligence, being denied work, being treated as sub-human, etc. But that doesn't mean that when your skinny pasty white ass walks down the street at night, people will lock their car doors when they see you.

His set just refers to the problems associated with the concept of "reverse racism" with the idea being that racism requires privilege and power so minority groups can't be racist to dominant groups. If we wanted to take his logic to the extreme and apply it to the Irish, the conclusion we'd reach is that people can be racist against Irish people - which is something I thought was already well-accepted.

This is another chain-yanking thread, right?

If I run into anyone who claims to genuinely believe that only some groups can be guilty of racism, I would ask them first of all, to explain the exact mechanism and time-table that is involved with getting that free pass.

For what it's worth, I don't believe in "reverse racism." No such thing. there's juuuuuust racism, and it's as universal to everyone as having to poop periodically.

igorfrankensteen wrote:This is another chain-yanking thread, right?

If I run into anyone who claims to genuinely believe that only some groups can be guilty of racism, I would ask them first of all, to explain the exact mechanism and time-table that is involved with getting that free pass.

For what it's worth, I don't believe in "reverse racism." No such thing. there's juuuuuust racism, and it's as universal to everyone as having to poop periodically.

It just comes down to exactly how you're defining 'racism'. The confusion is over the fact that in everyday language we tend to conflate things like prejudice, bigotry, discrimination, etc, with 'racism' when the term also has a more rigorous use which is more than simple bigotry.

In other words, I don't think anyone really denies that black people can be prejudiced against white people, or that being a dickhole against white people is inherently okay simply because they're white, but rather they're just pointing out that [whatever you want to call it] is clearly different in the case of black people and in the case of white people. So even though it's shitty to call a white guy a 'cracker', nobody would say that it's just as bad as calling a black guy a 'nigger'.

I think conversations like these can avoid getting bogged down in that semantic confusion simply by accepting that fundamental distinction between the two cases.

I think that what it is, is that I just draw the defining lines into the picture of all these interactions a bit differently. Essentially, I do a different "sort" of the data and the conclusions than others do.

To me, racism is racism is racism. Declaring that someone is inherently worse or better than someone else, or is more or less deserving of patience or punishment due to their heritage, is racism or one of it's closest cousins.

I recognize and distinguish between that, and how SIGNIFICANT the force of racism can be, due to the structure of the society it takes place in. It is a separate fact that Eurocentric racism has a greater history of destruction and oppression against non-Europeans, than other acts of racism have had. That has nothing to do, however, with whether there can ever be a justification for racism, or an excuse for it.

I ask, as others have before me, exactly how and when a vile act becomes a laudable one, due to who commits it against whom and why. Racism, to my thinking, does not change from being a bad thing, to being a good thing, simply because someone is racist for the sake of revenge, or because they have suffered at the hands of other racists.

The idea that something like "reverse racism", as described comedically above, SHOULD be allowed until there is a sense of balance again, makes no sense to me. It calls for society to support persecution of the descendants of the persecutors, for as much time and as much destruction as is necessary to "equalize" the amount of history that has transpired, and only THEN, will said society agree that ALL racism is bad.

Of course the Irish can be racist. Overheard frequently "Bloodly Romanians coming here and scrounging our benefits" of course you can substitue Poles or Blacks to suit any occasion, and in place of benefits you can replace with begging.

And lets not even mention travellers.

igorfrankensteen wrote: I ask, as others have before me, exactly how and when a vile act becomes a laudable one, due to who commits it against whom and why. Racism, to my thinking, does not change from being a bad thing, to being a good thing, simply because someone is racist for the sake of revenge, or because they have suffered at the hands of other racists.

Agreed, I don't think the semantic difference can rationally be used to say that one kind of bigotry is bad and the other is good. The distinction is simply a useful one to make under some contexts. In other words, slapping someone and stabbing them in the chest are both bad things and can broadly be considered "assault", but it makes sense to categorise one under simple assault and the other under something like "wounding with intent".

igorfrankensteen wrote:The idea that something like "reverse racism", as described comedically above, SHOULD be allowed until there is a sense of balance again, makes no sense to me. It calls for society to support persecution of the descendants of the persecutors, for as much time and as much destruction as is necessary to "equalize" the amount of history that has transpired, and only THEN, will said society agree that ALL racism is bad.

I think it would be very strange for someone to try to argue that some kinds of bigotry and prejudice are okay because they "balance the books" or whatever but I don't think that's what is being said in the video of the OP though.

Mr.Samsa wrote:To illustrate it, being Irish means that you share some features of oppression with black culture, especially historically like the banning of your language in schools, stereotypes of your intelligence, being denied work, being treated as sub-human, etc. But that doesn't mean that when your skinny pasty white ass walks down the street at night, people will lock their car doors when they see you.

They should


But seriously, this would happen in certain areas of Northern Ireland.

Mr.Samsa wrote:His set just refers to the problems associated with the concept of "reverse racism" with the idea being that racism requires privilege and power so minority groups can't be racist to dominant groups. If we wanted to take his logic to the extreme and apply it to the Irish, the conclusion we'd reach is that people can be racist against Irish people - which is something I thought was already well-accepted.

I think minorities can be racist toward the dominant groups. There is a group of African-Americans, I forget the name, who think that the solution to all the world's problems is to kill all the white people (because white people are all the world'sproblems).
The Nation of Islam have a reverse position to some Nazis, where the Nazis think that white people are "more evolved" than black people, the Nation of Islam think that the black man is the thoroughbred race while whites and others are crazy off-shoots, like dogs to wolves, I suppose.

Animavore wrote:But seriously, this would happen in certain areas of Northern Ireland.

But the point is that I'm willing to bet that it's not done because they've mistaken you for a black guy and all the negative associations that go along with that. Obviously there are a number of factors that could lead to someone locking their car door as a person approaches but I don't think it would be common for them to lock it specifically because you were Irish (especially since they'd have no idea you were Irish simply by looking at you, unless you're rolling down the street in a leprechaun hat, wearing only the Irish flag as clothes and simultaneously drinking a Guinness whilst playing the fiddle).

Animavore wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:His set just refers to the problems associated with the concept of "reverse racism" with the idea being that racism requires privilege and power so minority groups can't be racist to dominant groups. If we wanted to take his logic to the extreme and apply it to the Irish, the conclusion we'd reach is that people can be racist against Irish people - which is something I thought was already well-accepted.

I think minorities can be racist toward the dominant groups. There is a group of African-Americans, I forget the name, who think that the solution to all the world's problems is to kill all the white people (because white people are all the world'sproblems).
The Nation of Islam have a reverse position to some Nazis, where the Nazis think that white people are "more evolved" than black people, the Nation of Islam think that the black man is the thoroughbred race while whites and others are crazy off-shoots, like dogs to wolves, I suppose.

Sure, but that's just the semantic issue I discuss with Igor above. Racism has different meanings to different people and in the broader everyday sense, sure minorities can be "racist" to dominant groups. But generally when there is a serious discussion about race and society, it's more appropriate to use the more rigorous definition used in the relevant academic fields, and in that case such racism is not possible. Instead, it's defined more accurately as bigotry or prejudice (and, to be clear, that isn't to take away any of the horribleness of their position, it's simply a useful conceptual distinction to make when discussing specific topics).