Interracial Relationships

[deleted464787]

I only used the world technically because you are ignoring his genetic makeup to classify him as white. When he’s actually both. Yes, his phenotype is that of a white man. But I would and do argue that isn’t 100% accurate. The problem with the logic you’re using in your counter argument stands on the notion that everyone is treated fairly. Which they aren’t. Phenotype and genetics are correlated with race, but humans only use phenotype when categorizing us all. That isn’t accurate or true.

Ok, we have established that you believe the man is both white and black. Thats fine--lets run with this for now:

So since you agree that he is now a black man, does this mean he cant be racist, since black people cannot be racist?
Do you believe he should be eligible for affirmative action, since he is black?
If youre the type of person that believes black people should receive reparations, do you believe he is entitled to reparations, since he is black?
If you believe its only ok for black people to use the n-word, do you believe he should now be able to use it without any form of social repercussions?

 

[Nigel Atkinson]

Can you be a little more specific? What portion of the human race is being treated differently because of the color of their skin?

Hasn’t everyone been treated differently because of the color of their skin at some point or another?

when you say I have white privilege, as You have done in the past, are you not treating me differently and making a statements/assumptions about me solely based on the color of my skin, and not my genotype?


—————-

by the way, I’m not talking in circles because I believe everything I’m saying. I’m saying it to show how flawed your logic is. I have no problem with you trying to claim that I have white privilege... but you can’t say someone has white privilege, while simultaneously saying there are no races because we’re all the same, and only black people are treated differently. All those statements do not comport with each other

I thought I was being specific. We’re talking about Black Lives Matter. So I’m obviously referring to black people. Yes, people do get treated differently because of the color of their skin. Is this last part meant to be a reply to me ? I didn’t say anything about you talking in circles right now.

You’re conflating things. You can believe that we are all one race, but that doesn’t change the fact that people are treated differently based on skin tone. Hence white privilege and Black Lives Matter.

 

[Nigel Atkinson]

also on that note, since you said that the white supremacist in the video above is “technically black” does this mean you don’t believe he has white privilege? I’m having trouble wrapping my head around how a black man can have white privilege.

If he does, what, other than his skin color, are you using to determine whether or not he has white privilege? Also, if he has white privilege, doesn’t that mean everyone on earth has white privilege, if they all have some small amount of white ancestry?

and if he doesn’t, doesn’t that mean no one on earth has white privilege, since we’re all “technically black?”

These are all questions that you will need to reconcile with your worldview if you are going to Subscribe to such a worldview.

Or you could just agree that there are white people, black people, Asian people, etc... and that acknowledging these differences doesn’t have to diminish anyone’s humanity in any way.

he obviously has white privilege because he’s judged on his phenotype as is everyone else. People that have a Eurocentric phenotype and those that are white passing will have white privilege despite having a mix ancestry. This still wouldn’t negate my previous posts.

 

[Nigel Atkinson]

Ok, we have established that you believe the man is both white and black. Thats fine--lets run with this for now:

So since you agree that he is now a black man, does this mean he cant be racist, since black people cannot be racist?
Do you believe he should be eligible for affirmative action, since he is black?
If youre the type of person that believes black people should receive reparations, do you believe he is entitled to reparations, since he is black?
If you believe its only ok for black people to use the n-word, do you believe he should now be able to use it without any form of social repercussions?

Sorry I know how the laughing emoji bugs you but this post I find funny. Who said black people can’t be racist ? Black people can be racist and they can be racist to their own. Reparations would be for those who have experienced what black people have. This man wouldn’t qualify. I’m sure he already uses the N-word.

 

[deleted464787]

Sorry I know how the laughing emoji bugs you but this post I find funny. Who said black people can’t be racist ? Black people can be racist and they can be racist to their own.

Lots of people have said black people cant be racist.

Reparations would be for those who have experienced what black people have.

But... hes a black person. So hasnt he experienced what black people have through his experieneces? How can he be black, but not experienced what black people have?

I’m sure he already uses the N-word.

The laughing emoji is totally justified here... he probably does use the N-word lol. But you get my point.

 

[deleted464787]

Is this last part meant to be a reply to me ? I didn’t say anything about you talking in circles right now.

I know you didnt say that. I was acknowledging that I was being intentionally facetious and using arguments that I dont even believe in, but they would be viable arguments if if one subscribed to your worldview.

 

[Nigel Atkinson]

Lots of people have said black people cant be racist.



But... hes a black person. So hasnt he experienced what black people have through his experieneces? How can he be black, but not experienced what black people have?



The laughing emoji is totally justified here... he probably does use the N-word lol. But you get my point.

His phenotype has afforded him a different experience than that of someone who doesn’t share his phenotype.

 

[deleted464787]

His phenotype has afforded him a different experience than that of someone who doesn’t share his phenotype.

so... if a black person has light enough skin, they can experience white privilege?

And if that’s the case, why not call it light-skin privilege, instead of white privilege? Since the white race doesn’t even exist?

 

[Sagittarius84]

also, if you both agree with the implication that fish squeeze is advocating here, then you also need to agree that the statement “Black Lives Matter“ is a falsehood, and it should be amended to “all lives matter“ or at the very least, “human lives matter“ since we are all part of the human race, right?

what I find totally ironic is that the militant defenders of the BLM movement actually consider the statement “all lives matter“ to be racist.

So now, you both have to reconcile that one as well.

it is illogical for you to consider yourself a supporter of the Black Lives Matter movement (Which I’m sure you both do… I’d be very surprised if you weren’t), if you are going to subscribe to the statement that we are all “one race“ and that The colloquial use of races should be abolished.

So what you're saying is we can count on the desecendants of european colonizers to pay for the research necessary and put in the effort to help us reclaim our names and our culture so that we may shed that moniker we've had to cling to instead? Because anything short of that is a great reason to stick to "Black"

 

[deleted464787]

So what you're saying is we can count on the desecendants of european colonizers to pay for the research necessary and put in the effort to help us reclaim our names and our culture so that we may shed that moniker we've had to cling to instead? Because anything short of that is a great reason to stick to "Black"

You seem to have this fixation on "European" things. When you say "European colonizers" do you mean white people? Or do you strictly mean people from Europe?

And what do you mean by "reclaim our names and our culture?" As far as I know, a name is something that is abstract--so as far as Im concerned you can name yourself whatever you want.

And as far as your culture is concerned, I say embrace whatever culture you want as well. With globalization advancing the way it has, before long, humankind truly will be one race, and most likely, even one culture... so long as no one cloisters themselves away from the rest of the world.

 

[Sagittarius84]

You seem to have this fixation on "European" things. When you say "European colonizers" do you mean white people? Or do you strictly mean people from Europe?

Im talking any and all of the offending or complicit parties in the worldwide campaign of white supremacy.

And what do you mean by "reclaim our names and our culture?" As far as I know, a name is something that is abstract--so as far as Im concerned you can name yourself whatever you want.

Sounds like the privileged musing of a person who by default has a name that accurately describes a part of who they or their family is, ancestrally...not as a reminder of who owned them.

And as far as your culture is concerned, I say embrace whatever culture you want as well. With globalization advancing the way it has, before long, humankind truly will be one race, and most likely, even one culture... so long as no one cloisters themselves away from the rest of the world.

We wanted to embrace our culture, we couldn't so we embraced one that unified us and simultaneously thumbed our noses at our oppressors, why you mad?

 

[Nigel Atkinson]

so... if a black person has light enough skin, they can experience white privilege?

And if that’s the case, why not call it light-skin privilege, instead of white privilege? Since the white race doesn’t even exist?

A black person that is so light that they experience white privilege would be white passing. So light-skin privilege wouldn’t fit here.

 

[deleted464787]

Im talking any and all of the offending or complicit parties in the worldwide campaign of white supremacy.

Oh ok. So youre not talking about me then. Good to know.

Sounds like the privileged musing of a person who by default has a name that accurately describes a part of who they or their family is, ancestrally...not as a reminder of who owned them.

Youre speaking kind of cryptically here. Just to be sure were on the same page--are you talking about how if a person owned a slave, that slave would be given a name by their owner and that name just kind of stuck?

If so, that sounds terrible. But, if you knew what your ancestor's names were BEFORE they got sold into slavery... and you wanted to return to that name now... couldnt you just... legally change your name now? Or am I missing something?

We wanted to embrace our culture, we couldn't so we embraced one that unified us and simultaneously thumbed our noses at our oppressors, why you mad?

Im not mad. Just curious, and asking you to elaborate. Its terrible that certain people couldnt embrace their cultures then. But why speak in a past tense about it--arent you able to embrace just about whatever culture you want now? Even make up your own brand new culture now--whatever makes you happy, right? Or is that still not allowed? Im pretty sure it is.

 

[Sagittarius84]

Youre speaking kind of cryptically here. Just to be sure were on the same page--are you talking about how if a person owned a slave, that slave would be given a name by their owner and that name just kind of stuck?

If so, that sounds terrible. But, if you knew what your ancestor's names were BEFORE they got sold into slavery... and you wanted to return to that name now... couldnt you just... legally change your name now? Or am I missing something?

Have you seen Roots? Do you understand the underlying and overlying message of Kunta Kente being beaten for refusing to refer to himself as Toby? We didnt just forget, it was beaten out of us along with a 400yr message to assimilate to whiteness to survive. What you're missing is we have been cut off and removed from our ancestry so profoundly we couldnt recognize it if it were paraded in front of us.

Im not mad. Just curious, and asking you to elaborate. Its terrible that certain people couldnt embrace their cultures then. But why speak in a past tense about it--arent you able to embrace just about whatever culture you want now? Even make up your own brand new culture now--whatever makes you happy, right? Or is that still not allowed? Im pretty sure it is.

We want our culture, we want, we are entitled to build upon what our ancestors laid out, and are still recovering from the half millenia long efforts our oppressors exerted to prevent that from happening. Our basis is so corrupted that Black people are probably the only ones on Earth whose common depiction of God or a savior figure doesnt resemble ourselves, but rather is in the image of our oppresors. Those who do not their history are doomed to repeat it no matter what they choose to cling to next.

 

[Sagittarius84]

Oh ok. So youre not talking about me then. Good to know.

Im not trying to come at you with an accusatory spirit, but what exactly do you think excludes you from being descended from european colonizers and their enablers/co conspirators?

 

[deleted464787]

Im not trying to come at you with an accusatory spirit, but what exactly do you think excludes you from being descended from european colonizers and their enablers/co conspirators?

What exactly do you think would INCLUDE me? Surely not the color of my skin, right? Not exactly sure how you could ask such a question without knowing my lineage and ancestry yourself. But since youre asking, Im a 3rd gen natural born American myself, with Nordic background on my moms side, and a mix of Russian/Italian background from my dads side.

Also, If my actual PARENTS were to go out and commit mass murder, I would feel saddened by it, but I wouldnt be responsible, or even accountable for it. Trying to hold someones descendants accountable for what their ancestors did that they had ABSOLUTELY no part of (especially when they even condemn it) is horrifying. Do you know who does that kind of stuff? North Korea.

Whenever someone comes up with inflammatory comments regarding this topic--specifically when they dont ACTUALLY know the other persons ancestry, and are simply making assumptions about the persons ancestry--I always have to wonder... what is it this person really wants? Justice? Or revenge?

 

[deleted464787]

Im not trying to come at you with an accusatory spirit, but what exactly do you think excludes you from being descended from european colonizers and their enablers/co conspirators?

Meant to include it in my previous reply, but the time limit was reached.

Also... does it even matter what Im DESCENDED from? Arent my behaviors and actions more important than what Im descended from?

 

[Sagittarius84]

Meant to include it in my previous reply, but the time limit was reached.

Also... does it even matter what Im DESCENDED from? Arent my behaviors and actions more important than what Im descended from?

Not when we're talking about a social engineering exercise of eugenics, genocide, and terror that lasted 400+ yrs. The unfortunate truth is when you decide to embark on such a campaign, you burden your descendants and the descendants of your conspiritors and complicit parties with the debt of accountability by virtue of leaving behind a system which they inherit.
And typically the bare minimum most African descended peoples ask for is a simple admission of culpability, complacency, or pure apathy towards the white supremacist foundations in place, with the small hope that by speaking the truth, not sugarcoating, evading, minimizing it, you're affirming that you know better to do better.
You inherited a land indebted to a people, now you can either pay the debt or surrender the land.

 

[deleted1220758]

Considering OP's question, can it potentially be racist? Very likely. Does it matter in the end? Not really.

 

[deleted464787]

Not when we're talking about a social engineering exercise of eugenics, genocide, and terror that lasted 400+ yrs. The unfortunate truth is when you decide to embark on such a campaign, you burden your descendants and the descendants of your conspiritors and complicit parties with the debt of accountability by virtue of leaving behind a system which they inherit.
And typically the bare minimum most African descended peoples ask for is a simple admission of culpability, complacency, or pure apathy towards the white supremacist foundations in place, with the small hope that by speaking the truth, not sugarcoating, evading, minimizing it, you're affirming that you know better to do better.
You inherited a land indebted to a people, now you can either pay the debt or surrender the land.

you do realize, campaigns involving conquest and genocide have been woven throughout the fabric of human history for tens of thousands of years? It is very likely that everyone, including you, have had ancestors that were either directly involved in, or complicit with such campaigns committed by their own people. Some of which even led to the complete annihilation of entire cultural populations.

Is there a reason why the most recent ones strike a bigger chord with you than other ones? Do you believe that you should be held accountable, or have a debt to pay for campaigns that happened thousands of years ago, if you believe I do for campaigns that happened hundreds of years ago?

i’m not asking these questions to play the “whataboutism” game by the way. I’m asking because a lot of people who make the argument that you’re making now are usually not well educated on human history, And seem to focus only on the certain tragedies that are convenient for them. I would just like to see if you can be intellectually honest about both cases.