White Privilege

[Johnnypenso]

Denying racism is also not Racism, but it is ignorance. In my experience most racist fully know they are.

The concept of X privilege is difficult for people who arent a minority to understand. Albeit a white person in an asian or black community or a jew in a protestant/catholic community etc. The name of this thread is misleading and provoking, but that doesnt mean the concept doesnt exist.

What if I fundamentally disagree with whether a particular thing is based on racism perhaps because I see no empirical evidence of racism and a host of other factors that come into play to influence a particular outcome? Essentially, I want to have an intellectual discussion surrounding a particular issue of race based on evidence and facts. Am I also a ignorant? Am I a racist? Is it too difficult for me to understand?

 

[PocketZeven]

You basically just said "white people wouldn't understand". How hard is it to see the racist element of that? Just insert another color instead of white and read it again. Can I turn your statement around and say that the concept of non-white privilege is difficult for people who are of a minority to understand? No, that would be racist too.

Sorry for the confusion. I was specifically referring to a majority or social elite. For example in indonesia the chinese-indonesian are majority but are definately privileged. In china the Han chinese are privileged over other minorities like the uygur. etc.

How did I say white people wouldnt understand in my statement? Above all it wasnt my intention.

What if I fundamentally disagree with whether a particular thing is based on racism perhaps because I see no empirical evidence of racism and a host of other factors that come into play to influence a particular outcome? Essentially, I want to have an intellectual discussion surrounding a particular issue of race based on evidence and facts. Am I also a ignorant? Am I a racist? Is it too difficult for me to understand?

I think being of a majority (White protestant/catholic in europe, Han chinese in China, Sunnis muslims in middle east, Muslim in Pakistan etc.) it is difficult to recognise privilege in their respective society. I tried to explain with the "sinterklaas" example from my earlier post. Do you think an average american or canadian will find this racist:

You refer to facts and evidence. And you of all people always seem to find another explanation for the racial wealth gap other then privilege or other forms of institutional discrimination in the world. Racism and discrimination however isnt a factbased occurence. It is purely psychological or emotion.

 

[Danoff]

Sorry for the confusion. I was specifically referring to a majority or social elite. For example in indonesia the chinese-indonesian are majority but are definately privileged. In china the Han chinese are privileged over other minorities like the uygur. etc.

How did I say white people wouldnt understand in my statement? Above all it wasnt my intention.

Does it actually help to say that Chinese-Indonesians will have a hard time understanding? Is that less racist?

I'll take your word for it that it wasn't your intention. It sounds like you're trying to claim that it is the state of being privileged that makes it difficult for any human to understand the circumstances of those who are not. And of course that's flat wrong, as has been discussed several times in this thread but seems to not stick. I'll discuss it again.

Human beings have the ability to empathize, and have imaginations that can dream up hypothetical scenarios. Our brains developed this kind of ability to aid in our natural selection fitness. It allows us to adapt better to our environment if we can run a simulation in our minds where we encounter some sort of problem without actually having to face that problem. Our imaginations save us a lot of trial and error. So even without what I'm about to say, human beings are very capable of understanding adversity that they do not have. I can picture what it's like to be a wolf who is constantly hungry, searching for food, trying to provide for young. That's not even my species!

Beyond that though, as I pointed out carefully earlier, all humans belong to some disadvantaged groups. We all share the fact that we face adversity, albeit different types. Our brains give us the ability to use those experiences to understand what it would be like to face other kinds of adversity. So each of us has personal experiences from which to draw to better understand the plight of others. That's not necessary for empathy, but it helps.

So please, stop it with the condescending "you wouldn't understand" nonsense. It's insulting and it's wrong.

 

[PocketZeven]

Does it actually help to say that Chinese-Indonesians will have a hard time understanding? Is that less racist?

I'll take your word for it that it wasn't your intention. It sounds like you're trying to claim that it is the state of being privileged that makes it difficult for any human to understand the circumstances of those who are not. And of course that's flat wrong, as has been discussed several times in this thread but seems to not stick. I'll discuss it again.

Human beings have the ability to empathize, and have imaginations that can dream up hypothetical scenarios. Our brains developed this kind of ability to aid in our natural selection fitness. It allows us to adapt better to our environment if we can run a simulation in our minds where we encounter some sort of problem without actually having to face that problem. Our imaginations save us a lot of trial and error. So even without what I'm about to say, human beings are very capable of understanding adversity that they do not have. I can picture what it's like to be a wolf who is constantly hungry, searching for food, trying to provide for young. That's not even my species!

Beyond that though, as I pointed out carefully earlier, all humans belong to some disadvantaged groups. We all share the fact that we face adversity, albeit different types. Our brains give us the ability to use those experiences to understand what it would be like to face other kinds of adversity. So each of us has personal experiences from which to draw to better understand the plight of others. That's not necessary for empathy, but it helps.

So please, stop it with the condescending "you wouldn't understand" nonsense. It's insulting and it's wrong.

I believe we have a misunderstanding. I am not implying that the majority dont want to understand. It is just very difficult to understand.

For example one can imagine or empathise being a parent is difficult. But only after being a parent can one empathise fully.


Edit: When did I ever state or suggest "you wouldnt understand" by the way. I specifically stated it is "difficult" to understand.

 

[ryzno]

I believe we have a misunderstanding. I am not implying that the majority dont want to understand. It is just very difficult to understand.

For example one can imagine or empathise being a parent is difficult. But only after being a parent can one empathise fully.

How is it difficult when some of us have lived in and with the unprivileged communities/racial groups our entire life?
Not to mention I was homeless for 2 years. I know the struggle.

 

[Danoff]

I believe we have a misunderstanding. I am not implying that the majority dont want to understand. It is just very difficult to understand.

For example one can imagine or empathise being a parent is difficult. But only after being a parent can one empathise fully.

No, no one can empathize fully ever. Not without actually becoming the other person. But they can empathize well without having been a parent. Certain life experiences will better enable them to empathize with being a parent. Babysitting for example, or having a dog, or watching a movie about parenting. But no one can fully empathize with my life as a parent unless they actually become me, even other parents. They don't have my kids. Even my wife cannot fully empathize with my experiences even though she does have my kids because she is not literally me. She doesn't have my brain. She doesn't have my body, the kids don't respond to me the way they respond to her. But she can empathize well in part because she sees the way they interact with me.

So once again, you're picking on something that you seem to think is unique to this discussion but is actually ubiquitous in all aspects of life. It is true that someone who has a certain lack of adversity cannot empathize fully with someone who has that adversity. But it is also true that someone who has that adversity cannot empathize fully with someone else who has that adversity. So "empathize fully" is a useless concept.

What you're picking at is the degree to which they can empathize. What you mean to say is "only after being a parent can one empathize well". And you're wrong.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I think being of a majority (White protestant/catholic in europe, Han chinese in China, Sunnis muslims in middle east, Muslim in Pakistan etc.) it is difficult to recognise privilege in their respective society. I tried to explain with the "sinterklaas" example from my earlier post. Do you think an average american or canadian will find this racist:

I can't speak for average Canadians or Americans, only myself. On it's face I wouldn't assume it's racist, no. I'd investigate, find out what this was about, specifically what the intent was, and decide from there. We had a big discussion about this a couple of years ago, probably in this very thread.

You refer to facts and evidence. And you of all people always seem to find another explanation for the racial wealth gap other then privilege or other forms of institutional discrimination in the world. Racism and discrimination however isnt a factbased occurence. It is purely psychological or emotion.

Wrong and completely so. If racism exists, and leads to discrimination, it can be measured. You, for example, use the racial wealth gap as your statistical evidence. I merely offered up some rational alternatives to compare disadvantaged groups and their outcomes. You simply dismissed them completely with no basis in logic or reason for doing so. The gender pay gap is a similar issue. It exists in the absolute sense, but when you begin to look at and control for various factors like preferences, experience etc. , it turns out to not really exist at all. A study came out recently, and I'll link it if you want to see it, that showed that the way in which men and women choose the work they do, actually moves away from gender equality rather than towards it in western societies.

I'm not saying that the racial wealth gap doesn't exist, nor that it isn't caused in some part by racism or historical disadvantage, but rather I'm looking at ways to control for that historical disadvantage to isolate the effects of it in order to better understand the issue. That's why, for example, I'd suggest looking at something like poor, destitute and penniless people arriving on a boat with nothing but rags on their back, to the situation of blacks who have been here for hundreds of years and are already embedded in society. It's a more than reasonable comparison. From an economic and a governing standpoint though, I'm much more interested in looking at why some are able to overcome that disadvantage and some are not. Understanding why the gap exists is important but it does nothing moving forward to erase it. I don't, but even if we agreed that the racial wealth gap was entirely due to historical disadvantage and racism, that still doesn't give us any path to move forward to eliminate the disadvantages.

It doesn't help anyone to keep a certain demographic down, it's rather expensive actually. It's in everyone's best interest, including the privileged, to lift everyone else up. to ensure there is a ladder for everyone to climb. I think that's why America elected a black-ish President 10 years ago. He just didn't do much, if anything at all, to help the situation.

Edited with the strikethrough.

 

[PocketZeven]

No, no one can empathize fully ever. Not without actually becoming the other person. But they can empathize well without having been a parent. Certain life experiences will better enable them to empathize with being a parent. Babysitting for example, or having a dog, or watching a movie about parenting. But no one can fully empathize with my life as a parent unless they actually become me, even other parents. They don't have my kids. Even my wife cannot fully empathize with my experiences even though she does have my kids because she is not literally me. She doesn't have my brain. She doesn't have my body, the kids don't respond to me the way they respond to her. But she can empathize well in part because she sees the way they interact with me.

So once again, you're picking on something that you seem to think is unique to this discussion but is actually ubiquitous in all aspects of life. It is true that someone who has a certain lack of adversity cannot empathize fully with someone who has that adversity. But it is also true that someone who has that adversity cannot empathize fully with someone else who has that adversity. So "empathize fully" is a useless concept.

What you're picking at is the degree to which they can empathize. What you mean to say is "only after being a parent can one empathize well". And you're wrong.

Exactly that was my point. But I do have to note that empathising is a term that can be used broadly.

For example you and I perhaps cant fully empathize with someone who has a disabled son or has been homeless in the case of @ryzno. But we do sympathise with them.

Sympathising can often interchangeably used with empathising. To be fully clear I can for a fact not fully empathise with you being a US citizen as you cannot empathise being a Dutchman.

So how am I wrong?

 

[Danoff]

For example you and I perhaps cant fully empathize with someone who has a disabled son or has been homeless in the case of @ryzno. But we do sympathise with them.

You can empathize with them as well - because you have a brain. Your brain doesn't just allow you to understand the feelings of another person, it allows you to simulate the actual feelings. That's how empathy exists.

Sympathising can often interchangeably used with empathising. To be fully clear I can for a fact not fully empathise with you being a US citizen as you cannot empathise being a Dutchman.

Maybe not "fully" as discussed above. "Fully" is impossible for anyone. But yes, you can empathize with me being a US citizen without having been one. All you need to do is to understand the feelings associated, and then you can actually simulate their presence.

Sympathy is an identification and associated personal impact from the feelings of others. I recognize that you are grieving, for example, and I feel badly that you are. Empathy goes beyond that, to actually experiencing their feelings as if it was you. And that can be done without having had that experience yourself (this is necessarily so, since empathy would not exist otherwise, since you have not had the exact experiences of another person).

The difference between sympathy and empathy is that empathy requires you to put yourself in the shoes of another person. This is done with your brain, simulating their state based on your own past experiences. All of your past experiences are drawn upon to achieve this simulation, and they can help create a better approximation of what the other person is experiencing. But make no mistake, it is impossible to "fully" empathize with another human being. It is all a matter of degree, and you can achieve that degree through a large variety of personal experiences. Personal creativity will aid in determining which experiences to draw from in order to create a more accurate picture.

You can totally empathize with what it is like to be a US citizen. All you need to do is think of a time when you were irrationally proud of a pickup truck and pretend you have an affinity for eagles.

 

[PocketZeven]

You can empathize with them as well - because you have a brain. Your brain doesn't just allow you to understand the feelings of another person, it allows you to simulate the actual feelings. That's how empathy exists.



Maybe not "fully" as discussed above. "Fully" is impossible for anyone. But yes, you can empathize with me being a US citizen without having been one. All you need to do is to understand the feelings associated, and then you can actually simulate their presence.

Sympathy is an identification and associated personal impact from the feelings of others. I recognize that you are grieving, for example, and I feel badly that you are. Empathy goes beyond that, to actually experiencing their feelings as if it was you. And that can be done without having had that experience yourself (this is necessarily so, since empathy would not exist otherwise, since you have not had the exact experiences of another person).

The difference between sympathy and empathy is that empathy requires you to put yourself in the shoes of another person. This is done with your brain, simulating their state based on your own past experiences. All of your past experiences are drawn upon to achieve this simulation, and they can help create a better approximation of what the other person is experiencing. But make no mistake, it is impossible to "fully" empathize with another human being. It is all a matter of degree, and you can achieve that degree through a large variety of personal experiences. Personal creativity will aid in determining which experiences to draw from in order to create a more accurate picture.

You can totally empathize with what it is like to be a US citizen. All you need to do is think of a time when you were irrationally proud of a pickup truck and pretend you have an affinity for eagles.

I guess empathy translates differently in my language. I hope you understand what I was going for though. I was not saying white or whatever colour "wouldnt understand" I am just stating one can only fully understand when in ones shoes. Like I used the parent example. One can empathise (american english use) with being a parent but not understand how it feels to be responsible for a small child and having created a small human.

 

[Exorcet]

I guess empathy translates differently in my language. I hope you understand what I was going for though. I was not saying white or whatever colour "wouldnt understand" I am just stating one can only fully understand when in ones shoes. Like I used the parent example. One can empathise (american english use) with being a parent but not understand how it feels to be responsible for a small child and having created a small human.

Also keep in mind that there is variance in a group. Being a parent doesn't mean that you fully understand all parents just like being an American or black doesn't mean that you fully understand all Americans or black people.

I don't think there is much to the argument that the majority won't fully understand when neither minorities or majorities are homogeneous themselves, and as Danoff said, empathy isn't difficult.

 

[PocketZeven]

Also keep in mind that there is variance in a group. Being a parent doesn't mean that you fully understand all parents just like being an American or black doesn't mean that you fully understand all Americans or black people.

I don't think there is much to the argument that the majority won't fully understand when neither minorities or majorities are homogeneous themselves, and as Danoff said, empathy isn't difficult.

I agree, but my specific point was based on the idea that there are multiple levels of empathy. At least in my language there can be low empathy and high empathy. As I understood in american english you either empathise or you dont?

 

[Danoff]

I guess empathy translates differently in my language. I hope you understand what I was going for though. I was not saying white or whatever colour "wouldnt understand" I am just stating one can only fully understand when in ones shoes. Like I used the parent example. One can empathise (american english use) with being a parent but not understand how it feels to be responsible for a small child and having created a small human.

I understand what you're saying, and I'm trying to get you to see something else.

You're drawing an arbitrary line in the sand to say that you can only empathize well with a person of a particular skin color if you have had that skin color. For example, a white person cannot empathize well with a black person. If that were true, then it should also be true that a black person cannot empathize well with a white person. They must not know what it feels like to have "white privilege". They can never know what it's like to be white. It is, of course, absolute nonsense. And it's super easy to demonstrate.

A black person walking into a room full of black people with only one or two white people can get a sense of what it is like to be a white person walking into a room full of white people with only one or two black people. If we're isolating skin color and majority/minority experiences here, there you have it. That's one small part of actually empathizing with the more general experience, but it is a demonstration of how easy it is to empathize with that part.

I don't even have to have had that experience though. If I were the only guy at a wedding shower, that would probably suffice to communicate much of the dynamic. There are countless other examples.

I could go on, but I think it's enough to say that most people who think that white people could never understand what it's like to be black would never go the reverse - that black people could never understand what it's like to be white. And that's enough to demonstrate my point easily.

But beyond that...

I know what it's like to be treated differently based on my appearance, I'm a man.
I know what it's like to be a visible minority in the room.
I know what it's like for other people to be given preference just because they look different than me.
I know what it's like to question the motives of other people, and not know whether they're treating me differently based on my appearance or based on circumstance.
I know what it's like to see violence advocated against me on the basis of my skin color.
I know what it's like to be dismissed on the basis of appearance, publicly... and to have that dismissal accepted publicly.
etc.

But beyond any of that...

I have a brain that is very capable of understanding and simulating a vast array of experiences, many of which I have not felt personally.

So once again, knock it off with the "white people would never understand" sentiment. It's condescending, insulting, and wrong.

 

[Exorcet]

I agree, but my specific point was based on the idea that there are multiple levels of empathy. At least in my language there can be low empathy and high empathy. As I understood in american english you either empathise or you dont?

There aren't specific words for low empathy and high empathy, but the meaning of what you're saying is pretty clear. I think @Danoff explained it well above.

 

[McLaren]

Denying racism is also not Racism, but it is ignorance. In my experience most racist fully know they are.

You might be surprised in the US. There a lot of racists here that believe they're not, but will still throw out racist statements and then double down, "I can't be a racist because I'm a minority". That is true ignorance.

I think being of a majority (White protestant/catholic in europe, Han chinese in China, Sunnis muslims in middle east, Muslim in Pakistan etc.) it is difficult to recognise privilege in their respective society. I tried to explain with the "sinterklaas" example from my earlier post. Do you think an average american or canadian will find this racist:

Yes. You'd be forced to completely change or forbidden from expressing that part of, what I'm assuming from your previous post, is a Spaniard version of Christmas. People in the states are too quick to find the offense and ignore/refuse to understand the meaning of why they look that way b/c they don't want to look like the ass they made of themselves for not knowing better.

 

[Racelow]

You might be surprised in the US. There a lot of racists here that believe they're not, but will still throw out racist statements and then double down, "I can't be a racist because I'm a minority". That is true ignorance.

I actually see ignorance in this statement.
There has never been such an epidemic in the states when minorities ever proclaim themselves as a superior race. racist people dwell in the superiority not the minority. in other words, if a minority turned racist he/she would no longer be a minority but instead be self classified as the superior majority.

 

[McLaren]

I actually see ignorance in this statement.
There has never been such an epidemic in the states when minorities ever proclaim themselves as a superior race. racist people dwell in the superiority not the minority. in other words, if a minority turned racist he/she would no longer be a minority but instead be self classified as the superior majority.

Racism is racism regardless of social class. If a minority such as an Asian, Hispanic, or African American makes a racist remark, it's a racist remark.

 

[Racelow]

Racism is racism regardless of social class. If a minority such as an Asian, Hispanic, or African American makes a racist remark, it's a racist remark.

could you elaborate on racist remarks?
It is impossible for a minority to be racist. Simply classifying someone other than yourself as minority is an un-checked racist (remark) comment within itself. if you classify the Hispanics Asians and the African Americans as minorities then you automatically consider them to be less superior and less prevalent than another specific race.

I know of a black racist who self classify black as superior race because of the natural melanin that produce more dopamine and endorphins in the brain in order to cope with emotional and physical pain, more efficiently than any other race on earth. Although this maybe true, it does not make him superior. While he does not accept being labeled minority, the antagonist race who does consider him minority will tie results in both parties being racist.

It is true that different races may have different natural characteristics but it should not be used as a tool to help them gain power and conquer other races. Im fortunate to live in an environment here in the states were all forms racism from any race is quickly noticed and eradicated. but as for many other places in America it is tainted with racism and it mostly stems from the privileged whites. This is were we should pivot our main focus to suppress racism instead of pointing the blame at non-white races.

 

[McLaren]

could you elaborate on racist remarks?

It should be self-explanatory.

If a Hispanic or Asian calls an African American the n-word, that's a racist remark and therefore, makes the Hispanic or Asian a racist.
If an Asian or African American calls a Hispanic a s****, that's a racist remark and therefore, makes the Asian or African American a racist.
If an African American or Hispanic calls an Asian a g***, that's a racist remark and therefore, makes the African American or Hispanic a racist.

It is impossible for a minority to be racist. Simply classifying someone other than yourself as minority is an un-checked racist (remark) comment within itself. if you classify the Hispanics Asians and the African Americans as minorities then you automatically consider them to be less superior and less prevalent than another specific race.

Minority is referred to in the demographic outline that a specific race only makes up a minority percentage of population; racial superiority has nothing to do with it. This argument your presenting results in everyone being a minority in different countries.

Congrats. Your logic clears me of any racism if I call some one a racial slur in Africa or Asia because I am labeled the minority ethnicity, and per your words, "it is impossible for a minority to be racist".

 

[Racelow]

It should be self-explanatory.

If a Hispanic or Asian calls an African American the n-word, that's a racist remark and therefore, makes the Hispanic or Asian a racist.
If an Asian or African American calls a Hispanic a s****, that's a racist remark and therefore, makes the Asian or African American a racist.
If an African American or Hispanic calls an Asian a g***, that's a racist remark and therefore, makes the African American or Hispanic a racist.

Minority is referred to in the demographic outline that a specific race only makes up a minority percentage of population; racial superiority has nothing to do with it. This argument your presenting results in everyone being a minority in different countries.

Congrats. Your logic clears me of any racism if I call some one a racial slur in Africa or Asia because I am labeled the minority ethnicity, and per your words, "it is impossible for a minority to be racist".

you forgot to add...
'If a White American calls an African American an n-word, thats a racist remark therefore makes the White a racist'...

I noticed in your comments that you seem to be more concerned with racist remarks coming from non-white citizens of America. absolutely none of those you mentioned are epidemics that ruins the grace and causes great tension in America, but the one I added for you does.

and if you went to Africa as a minority to call all them N-words, it would not cause great tension because they were never stolen brought sold torn from families, forced to mate, beaten and made slaves by your ancestors. keep in mind that here in America, slavery existed far longer than it has been non-existing. If America had to pay back in equal years for this crime to humanity, it would still be approximately 116 years left to go.

 

[McLaren]

you forgot to add...
'If a White American calls an African American an n-word, thats a racist remark therefore makes the White a racist'...

I purposely left out Caucasians because you implied being a minority can not be racist. So, if a minority calls another minority a racial slur, your logic dictates neither is racist. Dumbfounded & wrong.

I noticed in your comments that you seem to be more concerned with racist remarks coming from non-white citizens of America. absolutely none of those you mentioned are epidemics that ruins the grace and causes great tension in America, but the one I added for you does.

I'm not concerned with it at all, you're merely doing exactly what I thought you would attempt to do. Your argument is nothing new; white people are racist and minorities are not. The irony is astounding.

and if you went to Africa as a minority to call all them N-words, it would not cause great tension because they were never stolen brought sold torn from families, forced to mate, beaten and made slaves by your ancestors.

Oh wow, a side step argument. So is it still racist or is it not? Your logic dictates none.

Also, quick history lesson:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...908743c79dd_story.html?utm_term=.2546330c8f73

For over 200 years, powerful kings in what is now the country of Benin captured and sold slaves to Portuguese, French and British merchants. The slaves were usually men, women and children from rival tribes — gagged and jammed into boats bound for Brazil, Haiti and the United States.

You're right, they weren't stolen and brought from torn families. They were too busy doing that to others.

Oh, do you happen to see those 2 other countries there? Yeah, I'm not from there. Funny how Americans tend to only think inside our little bubble and forget South America has a deep, dark history similar to ours.

keep in mind that here in America, slavery existed far longer than it has been non-existing. If America had to pay back in equal years for this crime to humanity, it would still be approximately 116 years left to go.

Too bad it doesn't. Sorry you may not be able to get over the fact I'm not responsible for what 1 man did to another, just as someone else isn't entitled to a reparation for someone they never knew.

Slavery also isn't some crime America caused. Suggest you try opening up a history book not confined to Civil Rights & Slavery in America.

From the 7th century until around the 1960s, the Arab slave trade continued in one form or another. Historical accounts and references to slave-owning nobility in Arabia, Yemen and elsewhere are frequent into the early 1920s.[49]

601-1960 is 1,359 years of slavery that has included everybody.

Davis estimates that 1 million to 1.25 million White Christian Europeans were enslaved in North Africa, from the beginning of the 16th century to the middle of the 18th by slave traders from Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli alone (these numbers do not include the European people which were enslaved by Morocco and by other raiders and traders of the Mediterranean Sea coast),[64] and roughly 700 Americans were held captive in this region as slaves between 1785 and 1815.[65]

Between 1525 and 1866, in the entire history of the slave trade to the New World, according to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, 12.5 million Africans were shipped to the New World. 10.7 million survived the dreaded Middle Passage, disembarking in North America, the Caribbean and South America.

And how many of these 10.7 million Africans were shipped directly to North America? Only about 388,000. That's right: a tiny percentage.

In fact, the overwhelming percentage of the African slaves were shipped directly to the Caribbean and South America; Brazil received 4.86 million Africans alone! Some scholars estimate that another 60,000 to 70,000 Africans ended up in the United States after touching down in the Caribbean first, so that would bring the total to approximately 450,000 Africans who arrived in the United States over the course of the slave trade.

The Atlantic slave trade was not the only slave trade from Africa, although it was the largest in volume and intensity. As Elikia M'bokolo wrote in Le Monde diplomatique:

The African continent was bled of its human resources via all possible routes. Across the Sahara, through the Red Sea, from the Indian Ocean ports and across the Atlantic. At least ten centuries of slavery for the benefit of the Muslim countries (from the ninth to the nineteenth) ... Four million enslaved people exported via the Red Sea, another four million[17] through the Swahili ports of the Indian Ocean, perhaps as many as nine million along the trans-Saharan caravan route, and eleven to twenty million (depending on the author) across the Atlantic Ocean.[18]

According to John K. Thornton, Europeans usually bought enslaved people who were captured in endemic warfare between African states.[19] Some Africans had made a business out of capturing Africans from neighboring ethnic groups or war captives and selling them.[20] A reminder of this practice is documented in the Slave Trade Debates of England in the early 19th century: "All the old writers ... concur in stating not only that wars are entered into for the sole purpose of making slaves, but that they are fomented by Europeans, with a view to that object."[21] People living around the Niger River were transported from these markets to the coast and sold at European trading ports in exchange for muskets and manufactured goods such as cloth or alcohol.[22] However, the European demand for slaves provided a large new market for the already existing trade.[23] While those held in slavery in their own region of Africa might hope to escape, those shipped away had little chance of returning to Africa.

 

[Racelow]

I purposely left out Caucasians because you implied being a minority can not be racist. So, if a minority calls another minority a racial slur, your logic dictates neither is racist. Dumbfounded & wrong.

I'm not concerned with it at all, you're merely doing exactly what I thought you would attempt to do. Your argument is nothing new; white people are racist and minorities are not. The irony is astounding.

Oh wow, a side step argument. So is it still racist or is it not? Your logic dictates none.

Also, quick history lesson:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...908743c79dd_story.html?utm_term=.2546330c8f73

You're right, they weren't stolen and brought from torn families. They were too busy doing that to others.

Oh, do you happen to see those 2 other countries there? Yeah, I'm not from there. Funny how Americans tend to only think inside our little bubble and forget South America has a deep, dark history similar to ours.

Too bad it doesn't. Sorry you may not be able to get over the fact I'm not responsible for what 1 man did to another, just as someone else isn't entitled to a reparation for someone they never knew.

Slavery also isn't some crime America caused. Suggest you try opening up a history book not confined to Civil Rights & Slavery in America.

601-1960 is 1,359 years of slavery that has included everybody.

White privilege:
Since when has racism ever been a problem among minorities in America?
Since when did America erased the dark history of slavery in this country to blame their actions on what may have occurred in Arab and African countries?

None of these issues are associated with white privilege. unless you are considering "if they did it why can't we" which would be pure ignorance.

And oh yes, slavery in America is the underlying root of white privilege, no need to keep trying to evade that fact.

Its odd how you try to twist the narrative with "Slavery is not some crime America caused" while omitting the fact that slavery in America is a crime America caused; no-one else is to blame for that. why so much delusional twisting?

 

[Northstar]

It is impossible for a minority to be racist.

I know of a black racist who self classify black as superior race

Which one is it?

 

[PocketZeven]

You might be surprised in the US. There a lot of racists here that believe they're not, but will still throw out racist statements and then double down, "I can't be a racist because I'm a minority". That is true ignorance.

Yes. You'd be forced to completely change or forbidden from expressing that part of, what I'm assuming from your previous post, is a Spaniard version of Christmas. People in the states are too quick to find the offense and ignore/refuse to understand the meaning of why they look that way b/c they don't want to look like the ass they made of themselves for not knowing better.

I am curious though do you think Sinterklaas and black Pete is racist?

 

[zzz_pt]

It would be weird, to say the least, for racist people to have fun and dressing up (in what appears to be noble like attire) in public as the very people they despise.

I'm trying to imagine a bunch of Jihadists dressing up as a Jews to have fun during a holiday.

 

[Racelow]

Which one is it?

The black guy never consider himself as a minority. In other words, he dosen,t classify his dominance or his worth based on racial population numbers, but instead his assumed psychological and physical advantages. His philosophy is that whites are sub-humans who lack melanin created from the ancient Africans. His belief is that whites are decedents of blacks but with deficient genes restricting them with narrow demintional logic urning only money and power.

 

[Northstar]

The black guy never consider himself as a minority.

So does that mean a white person can't be racist if they don't consider themselves a majority?

 

[Racelow]

So does that mean a white person can't be racist if they don't consider themselves a majority?

In my opinion, no.

but to the black racist guy. yes.

you see, there is one thing both the white and black racist agree on is that the black gene is dominant; and if races mix with the black gene it becomes black forever; even if their children upon generations appear to still look white. This is why the white racist fear racial mixing and the black racist love it. He would be happy to know that a white person accepts that they are not the real majority.

 

[Northstar]

In my opinion, no.

but to the black racist guy. yes.

So you're saying it's ok to hold people to different standards based on their race?

This is why the white racist fear racial mixing and the black racist love it.

I'm guessing you haven't spoken to many biracial kids.

 

[Racelow]

Northstar, you are conversating with a biracial kid.

So you're saying it's ok to hold people to different standards based on their race?



I'm guessing you haven't spoken to many biracial kids.