Friday, 28 March 2014

Conversations With Leftists (4)




"Only white people can be racist"

In a racist society it is white people who hold the power. Other groups are capable of displaying prejudice. When power and prejudice combine you have racism.”

That position on racism, or definition, is utterly Leftist/Marxist in nature. No one else would accept it. You have either been spoofed this Leftist definition, or you have willingly accepted it. Every single part of it can only be accepted if you have already accepted many other Leftist theories beforehand.

That statement comes across like a religious catechism. Racism is... It’s like: Truth is... I always thought that Marxism/Leftism was another religion - and so have many other people.

Racism is a about race; not about who holds power. The addition of this is a Leftist invention - from top to bottom. No one except a Leftist need accept that racism has anything at all to do with who holds the power. You can only accept that if you are a automaton Leftist who accepts these directives from on high.



Every syllable of that diktat can be challenged.

For a start, not all white people have political or social power. Millions upon millions of white people have not had real power. Isn’t that what you Leftists have been trying to tell the working class for ages (before Leftists gave up on them and started to patronise Muslims instead)?

Now you might answer by talking about relative power. Relative to ethnic minorities white people still have more power. But there’s still no reason to accept that only white people can be racist. There is still no reason to say that there is any connection between power and racism. If you have accepted a diktat from the top; there is no reason for any one else to do so.

What you’ve said is just an empty statement - a Leftist soundbite. Without argumentation, why should anyone - accept a gullible middle-class student - accept it just as it stands?

‘In a racist society it is white people who hold the power.’

You're arguing in circles. If you have already defined a society as ‘racist’, then white people holding the power is not to the issue. Unless it is racist because, and only because, white people hold the power. It simply sounds that you haven’t really thought about this diktat. You’ve simply accepted it: no questions asked.

What about Asian and African countries in which brown and black people hold the power? Can’t they be racist? The Sudanese Islamic regime murdered millions of black Africans primarily because they weren’t Muslims but also because they weren’t Arabic. Weren’t they racists? By your pathetic Trotskyist/SWPesque definition, they couldn’t be racist! What about the millions of white people who have no power?

The same applied to your distinction between racism and prejudice. Pure Leftism. Absolutely no one else would accept that, unless he’s a brain-dead white, middle-class student or another type of gullible fool.

2 comments:

  1. Paul

    I agree with you but a difficulty I have come across is that dictionaries do not!
    e.g. when defining ‘Race’ here is the last of 5 options:

    5.
    any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/race

    The problem then is that if you/we are against Islam and its influence on society, and we oppose Muslims who are promoting Sharia law are you/we not acting in a racist manner because we are acting against a ‘people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc – eg. Religion, belief system’??

    Any thoughts on how to respond to this line of arugument?
    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, there are loads of definitions of the word 'racism'. And equally many views on what racism is. No two dictionaries agree. I would hope that the Wikipedia article on racism would acknowledge this lack of consensus on racism.

    Perhaps that lack of consensus is precisely why so many Leftists use it so often and so mindlessly: they know there is not much behind the noise.

    In the post I didn't define racism. I simply said what racism isn't. And it isn't about political power. Political power may well compound racism or whatever. But that's not what Leftists say - if they say anything.

    Because Leftists/Marxists are reductionists and essentialists, it's not a surprise that they boil racism down to power. More correctly, Marxists reduces everything down to politics, which in turn is reduced down to "socioeconomic material conditions" (i.e. capitalism). So, it follows, that racism, to the Marxist, is all about political and economic power - just as literally everything else is about economic and political power to them.

    "....any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race."

    That's a fair enough definition. But no single definition of something so broad and vague as racism will ever do the job.

    "The problem then is that if you/we are against Islam and its influence on society, and we oppose Muslims who are promoting Sharia law are you/we not acting in a racist manner because we are acting against a ‘people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc – eg. Religion, belief system’??"

    Then, in that case, criticising a white person or a Christian is racist. And even criticising a German National Socialist (Nazi) circa the 1930s would have been racist because the Nazis too had a "common history, language, cultural traits".

    You can't concentrate on biology either - or at least the Leftist/Marxist can't. They've been telling us that the races as described in the 19th century don't really exist. So in one breath they deny the existence of races. And in the next breath their whole politics can almost be boiled down to what they call "anti-racism". Leftists, of course, will say that racists THINK races are real - and that's what matters. But so too does the Black Lawyers Association, the Black Panthers, the racist Arabs, the Leftists/Marxists who are obsessed by Jews, etc.

    ReplyDelete