Irish people can't be racist.

Mr.Samsa · **#41** by **Mr.Samsa** » Apr 30, 2014 11:13 pm

HomerJay wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote: In this situation, there is privilege associated not only with coming from a dominant white culture but also with looking white.

But privilege is a social construct, so it doesn't apply to white outwith that context.

Iceland for example, is white and was subject to aggression from non-whitey (like many other parts of europe) and didn't take part in any colonial activities (like those many other parts of europe).

it's false to claim all these people have privilege regardless of context just because they share visual characteristics with people who may enjoy privilege.

It is context dependent so the above does have to take in mind that it's a broad generalisation for a lot of countries. I have no idea what the situation is like in Iceland but if white people are routinely pulled over by the police for looking white or questioned by store security, then absolutely they don't have any kind of white privilege.

But if these people went practically anywhere else in the world, like the US or UK and even non-Westernised countries, they will receive a lot of white privilege regardless of their heritage or role in colonisation or whatever. To put it another way, when they go to a country like the US they aren't going to be mistaken for a black guy and they won't have the problems that come along with that association.

HomerJay · **#42** by **HomerJay** » May 02, 2014 8:44 pm

Mr.Samsa wrote:
HomerJay wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote: In this situation, there is privilege associated not only with coming from a dominant white culture but also with looking white.

But privilege is a social construct, so it doesn't apply to white outwith that context.

Iceland for example, is white and was subject to aggression from non-whitey (like many other parts of europe) and didn't take part in any colonial activities (like those many other parts of europe).

it's false to claim all these people have privilege regardless of context just because they share visual characteristics with people who may enjoy privilege.

It is context dependent so the above does have to take in mind that it's a broad generalisation for a lot of countries. I have no idea what the situation is like in Iceland but if white people are routinely pulled over by the police for looking white or questioned by store security, then absolutely they don't have any kind of white privilege.

They could have other forms of white privilege, this is meaningless.

Mr.Samsa wrote:But if these people went practically anywhere else in the world, like the US or UK and even non-Westernised countries, they will receive a lot of white privilege regardless of their heritage or role in colonisation or whatever. To put it another way, when they go to a country like the US they aren't going to be mistaken for a black guy and they won't have the problems that come along with that association.

So if white people are in contexts where they enjoy white privilege, they enjoy white privilege.

This is just tautologous.

In the context of the OP, he refers to whites and europeans and refers this back to colonisation.

But it depends very much on whose colonisation you're talking about (and slave trade).

The worst example of this probably Spain, also mentioned in the piece in the OP.

Last year Spain offered dual citizenship to historical Jewish communities that had been driven out of Spain since the Reconquista (they'd offered single but the take up was very low). The result was instant butt hurt from muslim communities who insisted on the same rights (we're talking EU rights here after all).

You regularly come across a sense of loss over Al-Andalus, especially since it has become identified with some sense of Islam's golden years, hence Cordoba featuring in Muslim Brotherhood culture.

Yet it's hard to think of another people who have colonised a country, been defeated and driven out and then turned around hundreds of years later and demanded citizenship!

Similarly, for the guy in the OP white/european colonisation of the sub-continent is interesting, muslim colonisation not so.

Mr.Samsa · **#43** by **Mr.Samsa** » May 02, 2014 11:36 pm

HomerJay wrote:
This is just tautologous.

Of course because true statements have to be tautologous.

HomerJay · **#44** by **HomerJay** » May 02, 2014 11:43 pm

Mr.Samsa wrote:
HomerJay wrote:
This is just tautologous.

Of course because true statements have to be tautologous.

Where is the tautology in 'This shoe is red'?

Mr.Samsa · **#45** by **Mr.Samsa** » May 02, 2014 11:59 pm

HomerJay wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:
HomerJay wrote:
This is just tautologous.

Of course because true statements have to be tautologous.

Where is the tautology in 'This shoe is red'?

The only way that the statement can be true is if the shoe is red, so the shoe is red because the shoe is red.

HomerJay · **#46** by **HomerJay** » May 03, 2014 12:13 am

Mr.Samsa wrote:
HomerJay wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:
HomerJay wrote:
This is just tautologous.

Of course because true statements have to be tautologous.

Where is the tautology in 'This shoe is red'?

The only way that the statement can be true is if the shoe is red, so the shoe is red because the shoe is red.

Yes but that isn't a tautology.

'This red shoe is red' could be tautologous (and not necessarily true) but the concept of 'shoe' doesn't include the predicate 'red'.

HTH

igorfrankensteen · **#47** by **igorfrankensteen** » May 03, 2014 4:39 pm

Mr.Samsa wrote:
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).

I don't disagree with your concern about using terms accurately (i.e. that since racism requires a belief that there ARE such things as races, that the term racism should be considered impossible).

However, since this thread is about the possibility of self-contradiction, that it really doesn't matter whether the term chosen is the old-fashioned idea of racism, or we rewrite all the posts substituting the more correct term "bigotry" to replace all the instances of "racism." Nothing that has been said would be functionally changed.

igorfrankensteen · **#48** by **igorfrankensteen** » May 03, 2014 4:57 pm

Since this did start from a HUMOR situation, I want to make some mention of racism/bigotry in that special context.

Specifically, I think that humorists have done a great deal more to reduce bigotry in he world than have many more serious opponents of such. This is both because of the fact that a lot of (especially modern) humor is founded on directly talking about what everyone has been hedging about, and getting both a standard "surprise" laugh, AND a tension relief laugh at the same time. Not to mention that it often is based around pointing out the contradictions inherent to all bigotry.

Given that, for what little it's worth, I want to spell out that I am NOT opposed to people telling "reverse racism" or "reverse bigotry" jokes, per se. I am ONLY opposed to the idea that ONLY previously persecuted peoples' have a "right" to tell such jokes, or that when they are done badly, or in a manner that encourages a fresh round of bigotry, that the aggrieved group is not permitted to complain, just because their ancestors committed some nasty acts.

tuco · **#49** by **tuco** » May 03, 2014 8:09 pm

I am not sure about "right" but I can understand and accept, for example, gypsies telling jokes based on stereotypes about majority which happens to be white rather than the other way around and I do not feel there is any need to make sophisticated argument for such notion as, to me, its self-evident.

Mr.Samsa · **#50** by **Mr.Samsa** » May 04, 2014 11:12 pm

HomerJay wrote:
Yes but that isn't a tautology.

'This red shoe is red' could be tautologous (and not necessarily true) but the concept of 'shoe' doesn't include the predicate 'red'.

HTH

Of course it's a tautology, the truth of the conclusion is stated in the premise so it has to be true under every possible circumstance.

HomerJay · **#51** by **HomerJay** » May 05, 2014 12:00 am

Mr.Samsa wrote:
HomerJay wrote:
Yes but that isn't a tautology.

'This red shoe is red' could be tautologous (and not necessarily true) but the concept of 'shoe' doesn't include the predicate 'red'.

HTH

Of course it's a tautology, the truth of the conclusion is stated in the premise so it has to be true under every possible circumstance.

It doesn't have a conclusion.

Imagination Theory · **#52** by **Imagination Theory** » Jul 21, 2014 2:13 am

Some sociologists say something like racism is "prejudice plus discrimination". I mean would you think a heterosexual saying "faggot" to a gay person was just as bad as a gay person saying "straighty" to a heterosexual? It really is different. I'm just surprised how hostile people get about it. It makes perfect sense to me. I suggest you read more about it than that guys short comment.

epepke · **#53** by **epepke** » Jul 21, 2014 3:18 am

Well, after y'all didn't help out for the potato famine, after a couple of hundred years of something a lot like genocide, a lot of Irish came over here, where they were at the bottom of the pile for a bit. So I think that the Irish have something to complain about.

It is of course, nonsense to say that they or anybody else, however, messed with, cannot be racist. That's drivel.

Imagination Theory · **#54** by **Imagination Theory** » Jul 21, 2014 4:22 am

As I said, would you really compare heterophobia and homophobia? I wouldn't. I wouldn't compare misogyny and misandry or racism against blacks and racism against whites. It is different, one is worse than the other so sociologists changed the meaning of the word "racism" to reflect that. Of course you can be prejudiced against white people, just not racist.

Imagination Theory · **#55** by **Imagination Theory** » Jul 21, 2014 4:37 am

By the by, when I first heard "you can't be racist to whites" I was like "what the fuck, of course you can!" I thought it was really stupid. This is a good way of putting it "racism is when intolerance in government laws, attitudes and ideals of a society are ingrained in a culture to the point where patterns of discrimination towards a certain race are institutionalized as normal." So yeah, you can't be racist to white people by that definition or heterophobic or sexist to men or cisphobic, etc.

Animavore · **#56** by **Animavore** » Jul 21, 2014 8:52 am

Imagination Theory wrote:By the by, when I first heard "you can't be racist to whites" I was like "what the fuck, of course you can!" I thought it was really stupid. This is a good way of putting it "racism is when intolerance in government laws, attitudes and ideals of a society are ingrained in a culture to the point where patterns of discrimination towards a certain race are institutionalized as normal." So yeah, you can't be racist to white people by that definition or heterophobic or sexist to men or cisphobic, etc.

Well actually you can be racist toward white people using that definition. Though it would take a situation like the one the comedian mentioned in the OP for that to happen.
Though at the same time, intolerance in government laws, attitudes and ideals of society are not ingrained in Irish culture to the point where patterns of discrimination towards certain races are institutionalised as normal, due to the fact that until the 90s Ireland was over 90% white, Irish Catholic and we don't have these long histories of slavery, oppression, plantation, dehumanising our foreign subjects and imperialistic superiority.
So we still can't generally be racist. Unless you can be racist towards the English.

Pebble · **#57** by **Pebble** » Jul 21, 2014 9:57 am

Animavore wrote:
Imagination Theory wrote:By the by, when I first heard "you can't be racist to whites" I was like "what the fuck, of course you can!" I thought it was really stupid. This is a good way of putting it "racism is when intolerance in government laws, attitudes and ideals of a society are ingrained in a culture to the point where patterns of discrimination towards a certain race are institutionalized as normal." So yeah, you can't be racist to white people by that definition or heterophobic or sexist to men or cisphobic, etc.

Well actually you can be racist toward white people using that definition. Though it would take a situation like the one the comedian mentioned in the OP for that to happen.
Though at the same time, intolerance in government laws, attitudes and ideals of society are not ingrained in Irish culture to the point where patterns of discrimination towards certain races are institutionalised as normal, due to the fact that until the 90s Ireland was over 90% white, Irish Catholic and we don't have these long histories of slavery, oppression, plantation, dehumanising our foreign subjects and imperialistic superiority.
So we still can't generally be racist. Unless you can be racist towards the English.

What about racism toward the Poles, Romanians, Itinerants (not sure they are a defined race though) - see plenty of that these days in Ireland. Don't really need govt. approval to be racist - just in a position to discriminate as a consequence of bigotry or fear.

Animavore · **#58** by **Animavore** » Jul 21, 2014 11:19 am

Pebble wrote:
Animavore wrote:
Imagination Theory wrote:By the by, when I first heard "you can't be racist to whites" I was like "what the fuck, of course you can!" I thought it was really stupid. This is a good way of putting it "racism is when intolerance in government laws, attitudes and ideals of a society are ingrained in a culture to the point where patterns of discrimination towards a certain race are institutionalized as normal." So yeah, you can't be racist to white people by that definition or heterophobic or sexist to men or cisphobic, etc.

Well actually you can be racist toward white people using that definition. Though it would take a situation like the one the comedian mentioned in the OP for that to happen.
Though at the same time, intolerance in government laws, attitudes and ideals of society are not ingrained in Irish culture to the point where patterns of discrimination towards certain races are institutionalised as normal, due to the fact that until the 90s Ireland was over 90% white, Irish Catholic and we don't have these long histories of slavery, oppression, plantation, dehumanising our foreign subjects and imperialistic superiority.
So we still can't generally be racist. Unless you can be racist towards the English.

What about racism toward the Poles, Romanians, Itinerants (not sure they are a defined race though) - see plenty of that these days in Ireland. Don't really need govt. approval to be racist - just in a position to discriminate as a consequence of bigotry or fear.

Well, according to Mr. Samsa and IT, that's not racism, that's bigotry. Otherwise what you just said applies to black people who hate white people out of bigotry or fear. But we've been told that it doesn't.
Anyway, it's not the Romanians that are hated, it's the Roma are. Irish people just mistakingly call them "Romanians" (most of them are from there though). I guess when you come to the country just to scrounge you're going to draw ire.

Pebble · **#59** by **Pebble** » Jul 21, 2014 11:58 am

Animavore wrote:
Pebble wrote:
Animavore wrote:
Imagination Theory wrote:By the by, when I first heard "you can't be racist to whites" I was like "what the fuck, of course you can!" I thought it was really stupid. This is a good way of putting it "racism is when intolerance in government laws, attitudes and ideals of a society are ingrained in a culture to the point where patterns of discrimination towards a certain race are institutionalized as normal." So yeah, you can't be racist to white people by that definition or heterophobic or sexist to men or cisphobic, etc.

Well actually you can be racist toward white people using that definition. Though it would take a situation like the one the comedian mentioned in the OP for that to happen.
Though at the same time, intolerance in government laws, attitudes and ideals of society are not ingrained in Irish culture to the point where patterns of discrimination towards certain races are institutionalised as normal, due to the fact that until the 90s Ireland was over 90% white, Irish Catholic and we don't have these long histories of slavery, oppression, plantation, dehumanising our foreign subjects and imperialistic superiority.
So we still can't generally be racist. Unless you can be racist towards the English.

What about racism toward the Poles, Romanians, Itinerants (not sure they are a defined race though) - see plenty of that these days in Ireland. Don't really need govt. approval to be racist - just in a position to discriminate as a consequence of bigotry or fear.

Well, according to Mr. Samsa and IT, that's not racism, that's bigotry. Otherwise what you just said applies to black people who hate white people out of bigotry or fear. But we've been told that it doesn't.
Anyway, it's not the Romanians that are hated, it's the Roma are. Irish people just mistakingly call them "Romanians" (most of them are from there though). I guess when you come to the country just to scrounge you're going to draw ire.

I think the critical point is to be in a position to discriminate - e.g. refuse jobs etc. So you have to be in a position to exercise 'power over' - that is why skin colour can be so potent - it make ones racism obvious in a fashion that is easily measured. White on white discrimination is more difficult to audit and report.

Animavore · **#60** by **Animavore** » Jul 21, 2014 12:01 pm

Pebble wrote:
Animavore wrote:
Pebble wrote:
Animavore wrote:

Well actually you can be racist toward white people using that definition. Though it would take a situation like the one the comedian mentioned in the OP for that to happen.
Though at the same time, intolerance in government laws, attitudes and ideals of society are not ingrained in Irish culture to the point where patterns of discrimination towards certain races are institutionalised as normal, due to the fact that until the 90s Ireland was over 90% white, Irish Catholic and we don't have these long histories of slavery, oppression, plantation, dehumanising our foreign subjects and imperialistic superiority.
So we still can't generally be racist. Unless you can be racist towards the English.

What about racism toward the Poles, Romanians, Itinerants (not sure they are a defined race though) - see plenty of that these days in Ireland. Don't really need govt. approval to be racist - just in a position to discriminate as a consequence of bigotry or fear.

Well, according to Mr. Samsa and IT, that's not racism, that's bigotry. Otherwise what you just said applies to black people who hate white people out of bigotry or fear. But we've been told that it doesn't.
Anyway, it's not the Romanians that are hated, it's the Roma are. Irish people just mistakingly call them "Romanians" (most of them are from there though). I guess when you come to the country just to scrounge you're going to draw ire.

I think the critical point is to be in a position to discriminate - e.g. refuse jobs etc. So you have to be in a position to exercise 'power over' - that is why skin colour can be so potent - it make ones racism obvious in a fashion that is easily measured. White on white discrimination is more difficult to audit and report.

There was a black-owned barber that set up in Dublin once which tried to put up a sign saying, "No Whites" (or something to that effect). By that logic that barber was racist. After all, he had the power to refuse custom based on skin colour.

:ask:

Irish people can't be racist.

Re: Irish people can't be racist.

Re: Irish people can't be racist.

Re: Irish people can't be racist.

Re: Irish people can't be racist.

Re: Irish people can't be racist.

Re: Irish people can't be racist.

Re: Irish people can't be racist.

Re: Irish people can't be racist.

Re: Irish people can't be racist.

Re: Irish people can't be racist.

Re: Irish people can't be racist.

Re: Irish people can't be racist.

Re: Irish people can't be racist.

Re: Irish people can't be racist.

Re: Irish people can't be racist.

Re: Irish people can't be racist.

Re: Irish people can't be racist.

Re: Irish people can't be racist.

Re: Irish people can't be racist.

Re: Irish people can't be racist.

Who is online