[noemon]

I do not live in the USA, how can the topic of this discussion be relevant to my personal experience, and how could my personal experience prove or disprove something?

That is because I do not know anybody being discriminated against in the west because of his white skin colour, your claim is so preposterous, I am curious if you have been subject to it.

[The Immortal Goon]

So how come a black criminal wanted to kill white policemen?

The same reason that a Muslim fundamentalist wanted to kill a man in a cage. Ideology exists and is based upon the material:

Men are the producers of their conceptions, ideas, etc. – real, active men, as they are conditioned by a definite development of their productive forces and of the intercourse corresponding to these, up to its furthest forms. Consciousness can never be anything else than conscious existence, and the existence of men is their actual life-process. If in all ideology men and their circumstances appear upside-down as in a camera obscura, this phenomenon arises just as much from their historical life-process as the inversion of objects on the retina does from their physical life-process.

In direct contrast to German philosophy which descends from heaven to earth, here we ascend from earth to heaven. That is to say, we do not set out from what men say, imagine, conceive, nor from men as narrated, thought of, imagined, conceived, in order to arrive at men in the flesh. We set out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process we demonstrate the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process. The phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises. Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life. In the first method of approach the starting-point is consciousness taken as the living individual; in the second method, which conforms to real life, it is the real living individuals themselves, and consciousness is considered solely as their consciousness.

But I guess that you are not so interested in that derailment. I'll instead point out that you have already decided a narrative based upon racial unrest and are using selective information to verify your own feels. Though I have not looked into it myself, a historian may have looked at the huge increase of violence after the First World War as both a cultural issue and a policing issue where veterans trained to kill on the battlefield had no conception of how to solve a domestic dispute. You'd look at an ex-serviceman that may have had severe PTSD that had been trained by the government to kill to solve his problems.

If you were a politician, you'd say that everyone matters and everyone needs to come together in our arms of whatever party and it would all be very dull.

If you were an ideologue, you might point out that a similar murder (that right-wingers don't ever bring up for obvious reasons) was perpetrated by a black man that believed in a conspiracy theory that made him not African, that was also a Male Rights Activist that didn't like Black Lives Matter and wanted to prove how alpha he was. In other words, he hit all the right-wing ideological beliefs, but the white-supremacists have to throw him away for that reason.

In the end though, you're a white supremacist so you're going to settle on an explanation that fits your narrative of being a special-snowflake-victim instead of linking it into a broader scope.

Is that not racism?

Racism depends on how it is defined (1, 2)

I think a fair definition is from the second link:

Can blacks be racist? The answer, of course, will depend on how you define racism. If you define it as “prejudice against or hatred toward another race,” then the answer is yes. If you define racism as “the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race,” the answer is yes. And if you define racism as “prejudice and discrimination rooted in race-based loathing,” then the answer is, again, yes. However, if you define racism as “a system of group privilege by those who have a disproportionate share of society’s power, prestige, property, and privilege,” then the answer is no. In the end, it is my opinion that individual blacks can be and sometimes are racists. However, collectively, blacks are neither the primary creators nor beneficiaries of the racism that permeates society today.

The last sentence is the primary one there: " blacks are neither the primary creators nor beneficiaries of the racism that permeates society today."

If that is racism, who instigates this anti-white racism?

It does not, in any way, benefit an African-American to be racist against white people (assuming you accept a certain definition of racism). While the reverse is not necessarily true.

[SolarCross]

However, collectively, blacks are neither the primary creators nor beneficiaries of the racism that permeates society today.

If that society is the US then that works but what if we are talking Zimbabwe or South Africa?

[The Immortal Goon]

If that society is the US then that works but what if we are talking Zimbabwe or South Africa?

Oh, I'm sorry, did Zimbabwe come up in a post that I didn't notice?

[SolarCross]

Oh, I'm sorry, did Zimbabwe come up in a post that I didn't notice?

Ha, well no I don't think so, I just wondered what you thought of that.

[The Immortal Goon]

Ha, well no I don't think so, I just wondered what you thought of that.

If I'm not mistaken, Zimbabwe was formerly Rhodesia and it was there the phrase was coined, "Whatever happens, we have got; The Maxim gun, and they have not."

I'm actually not much of a fan of Rhodes, who used to like cutting the tails from dogs and feeding it to the same dogs—something that disgusted Roger Casement and, according to Casement later, punctuated the British attitude in the area.

More than that, I know very little about Zimbabwe. Mugabe is supposed to be a jerk. I don't really know enough about the area to make an informed statement about it one way or another. I could even be wrong about the Rhodesia part of it.

[SolarCross]

If I'm not mistaken, Zimbabwe was formerly Rhodesia and it was there the phrase was coined, "Whatever happens, we have got; The Maxim gun, and they have not."

I'm actually not much of a fan of Rhodes, who used to like cutting the tails from dogs and feeding it to the same dogs—something that disgusted Roger Casement and, according to Casement later, punctuated the British attitude in the area.

More than that, I know very little about Zimbabwe. Mugabe is supposed to be a jerk. I don't really know enough about the area to make an informed statement about it one way or another. I could even be wrong about the Rhodesia part of it.

I don't know too much either. I was just playing with your interesting definition of racism (which while I guess is not conventional does make some sense) to see how it might work on the other foot so to speak. Well nevermind that, I'll butt out now.

[Dandelion]

I live in South Africa. There is presently a renewed rise in protest against the Zimbabwean dictatorship. SA is full of Zimbabwe economic migrants, and so we hear much about that place from the horse's mouth and the people of Zim are sick to death of their dictator and I do not give him much longer before they act against him one way or another.

South Africa is presently in the throes of local elections and interesting, ground breaking results are coming up as the opposition begins to shift the corrupt ANC from its pedestal in the major metropolitan areas. All votes have not yet been counted so there is still a bit of time to wait to see if my own area is going to be able to get an opposition party in. It's neck and neck and this is true also for Johannesburg. If three major cities can join Cape Town in opposition government at local level then this will be historic.

If you are interested I shall keep you posted. If not, sorry for intruding .

[Pants-of-dog]

TTP has a point. It seems strange that ACTUAL privileges (those supproted by the law and that you can actually point to a piece of paper granting that privilege) that only the wealthy enjoy are never talked about.

Actually, they are discussed quite often. Mostly by leftists and anti-poverty activists.

As to why Clinton is discussing white privilege and not economic privileges, it is because of capitalism. But do not worry, Clinton will make no substantial changes other than to mention white privilege in order to secure the black vote.

-------------

A major project of mine is to show that the condition of non-European peoples, quite often, is not determined by Europeans, but is mostly determined by themselves.

It is refreshing to see you admit that you have a preconceived notion that you will support, regardless of history and facts.

America has problems as a multiethnic society for the same reason all other multiethnic societies have problems as multiethnic societies.

No, not really, as most other multi-ethnic nations do not have the same history of slavery and segregation of blacks that the US has.

For example, Canada's only real ethnic issues arise from Canada's capitalist dependence on resource extraction which conflicts with indigenous ownership of land and resources, creating a financial incentive for Canada to destroy indigenous cultures.

Heredity + ethnocentrism. You can manage them, but you can never abolish them, you can cast out Nature, she comes back with a vengeance.

All human constructs built in contempt of Nature and her laws, including human nature, rest upon doomed foundations. This is the story of communism, of many a multicultural utopia, of egalitarianism in general.

Oh, the " natural is good" fallacy.

Lol.

[ArtAllm]

No, not really, as most other multi-ethnic nations do not have the same history of slavery and segregation of blacks that the US has.

They in fact still have slavery in many African countries, though it is officially prohibited. It was the usual business of black warlords in Africa to capture conquered black people and sell them into slavery, there was no other means for them to get rich.

Any existing nation has a history of slavery, slavery was something usual, if you read the religious books of Abrahamites you will find out that it was OK to have slaves. We all can claim that some of our ancestors were slaves. European peasants, the Serfs, were de facto slaves.

And there was a prominent Israeli Rabbi who still lived according to the stone age morals of the Old Testament. He officially declared, that non-Jews were created to serve the Jews, like a donkey has to serve his master.

In an October 2010 sermon, Yosef stated that "The sole purpose of non-Jews is to serve Jews". He said that Gentiles served a divine purpose: "Why are Gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why Gentiles were created."[72]
In the same article in The Jerusalem Post, according to the journalist who interviewed him, Yosef compared Gentiles to donkeys whose life has the sole purpose to serve the master...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovadia_Yosef

This guy got the biggest funeral in the history of Israel and he was called "our great teacher" by many leading politicians in Israel.

So I think that your opponent is right: diversity+proximity=balkanisation.

If there is no homogeneity in a nation, the "diverse" groups will always have historical grudges, they will try to get even, they will oppress other groups for compensations, etc.

If there is a religion that teaches that others have to serve you, because you are special, then this will further aggravate the situation.

If different groups have a different historical narrative, then the conflict is unavoidable.

A peaceful segregation is maybe a better option than balkanization.

If a married couple is too "diverse" to coexist, if there is no love left and the mutual hate cannot be supressed any more, then the divorce is a better option than constant domestic violence.

Why should it be better with diverse nations? Neither failed marriage nor the coexistence of incompatible groups in a failed state is something worse to preserve.

If such a "marriage" does not work any more in a state, if people are hating and killing one another, if they have different historical narratives, just separate and live your own life!

That is a more civilised option than the constant escalation of violence or the constant suppression of mutual hate.

Oh, the " natural is good" fallacy.

Lol.

That is the usual logic of leftist revolutioners who always try to conquer the nature, to subdue it, to make it better, to create a new human being. And they will not stop, regardless of the experience. Commies killed more people than any other totalitarian regimes, but they are still pushing their utopia about the "brave new world".

[Igor Antunov]

We are nature, we are confined by the natural laws of physics. ANYTHING we do is governed by the natural framework. Be it a sustainable ecology or industrial powerhouse global city-it is equally natural. Be it a race of robots created by humans pillaging the galaxy, or star trek commies exploring where no others have gone before-it is all natural.

You cannot escape nature, even in a computer simulation-which is also government by the fundamental physical laws of this universe. Designer medicine is just as natural as a herbal remedy. The only difference lies in terms of efficiency for purpose. Chances are that herbal remedy is comparatively shit and won't save you from that nasty lung infection.

Diversity is as natural as slavery. So best choose based on fit for intended purpose. It is not logical to bring 5 million Syrians into Germany for example-if you want to maintain a healthy, prosperous society. It is logical to bring 5 million educated whoever the fuck evers from wherever.

[layman]

or example, Canada's only real ethnic issues

Some would disagree

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/comment ... atter.html

What needs to be understood is that by defensively diminishing black Canadian experiences of police violence by arguing that it is worse in the States, that person is repeating the same violence as those who use the retort, All Lives Matter.

Both responses, All Lives Matter and “at least blacks in Canada have it better than blacks in the U.S.,” dehumanize and help to justify the molestation, maiming and murder of black bodies by police. Both expressions callously discard the sacred humanity, extreme pain and torturous trauma of not only the individual victims, but also of their families, friends and personal connections. This is also extremely insensitive to the black families, communities and their allies whose connection to common human decency causes them to feel the pain of others.

Any compassionate Canadian who has been following the solidarity gatherings that have been happening in Canadian cities will have heard some form of the same statement: Anti-blackness knows no borders.

[Sirius Star]

Sure white privilege exists, it's just that no one notices: oh the tax bills. It goes to those exact same schools? What brotherhood! Then you go there, too. What truth!

No one-liners either as regarding the most evil, the most reckless, the most stupid, the most callous, the hypothetical, the fundamentals, those economics, that math!

No, just that Hillary Clinton can deny she ever killed anyone when she is guilty of it, just the way the rest of the others are, and they shall all be found out by way of that.

Other than that, her very own Master Obama as intends to stay in power just long enough to continue with everything else he has done; next time it will be monuments.

[Pants-of-dog]

We are nature, we are confined by the natural laws of physics. ANYTHING we do is governed by the natural framework. Be it a sustainable ecology or industrial powerhouse global city-it is equally natural. Be it a race of robots created by humans pillaging the galaxy, or star trek commies exploring where no others have gone before-it is all natural.

You cannot escape nature, even in a computer simulation-which is also government by the fundamental physical laws of this universe. Designer medicine is just as natural as a herbal remedy. The only difference lies in terms of efficiency for purpose. Chances are that herbal remedy is comparatively shit and won't save you from that nasty lung infection.

Diversity is as natural as slavery. So best choose based on fit for intended purpose. It is not logical to bring 5 million Syrians into Germany for example-if you want to maintain a healthy, prosperous society. It is logical to bring 5 million educated whoever the fuck evers from wherever.

If everything is natural, then your claim that multiculturalism goes against nature is contradicted by this new claim of yours.

--------------

@layman,

Yes, some would disagree that the only problems for ethnic minorities are probelms associated with indigenous people, but that does not change the fact that the historical race relations with blacks is different in Canada.

Police brutality against minorities is a problem everywhere, but the causes of it are different in each country, and this is not a result of the same cuases as in the US, despite Ombrageux's claim.

[SpecialOlympian]

Good job using the No Natural Scotsman fallacy, Igor.

Or maybe you realized the wall your line of reasoning was driving into and that's why you switched from "natural" to "logical."