Awareness of racial slurs outside of the US

[Broken_Erika]

All Homo Sapiens should be held 100% responsible for the extinction of the Neanderthals!

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Don't you mean Cro-Magnon?

 

[luiz]

For starters stop complaining when you get called a colonizer. You are living on colonized land, and you are a member of the colonizer socioeconomic class as a white person. Chill out anyway. It’s not like being called a colonizer has any real effect on you, the term is backed by no power at all— because colonialism is still solidly in progress in Canada. It’s like if a POC called you a racist, would you say that it’s a slur against white people?

You once asked me if I ever read a history book. I in turn asked if you had ever read one or just had a crush on some (really incompetent) high school History teacher. But I was really not being sarcastic.

Pretty much every people on earth, including those in Africa and Asia, are living on land that belonged to some other people they kicked out at some point. Often pockets of these previous inhabitants still exist, and they are sometimes way more oppressed than American Indians. Ask the Khoisan of Central Africa, the numerous non-Tagalog peoples of the Philippines, Assyrians in the Middle East, and so on and so forth. And even the defeated people were often oppressing others. There was never a concept of "native Americans" before Columbus showed up, there were a bunch of tribes constantly at war and stealing land from each other. It's not like the Aztecs and Co. were known for their peaceful ways and respect for human rights.

But no, in this tiny head of yours it's all about "white people" oppressing "people of color" (an odious term if I ever heard one). White colonizers vs. colonized coloreds. What a sophisticated world view. Nevermind the countless examples to the contrary, and even many cases of "white people" being colonized by "people of color" for centuries.

 

[inthesomeday]

Oh, is there a special, secret definition that's not what it's dictionary definition or it's intuitive, sensible meaning derived from the word itself would logically and rationally indicate?

Not the dictionary definition, but the sensible and intuitive one. An “ism” tends to be an ideology, and racism is no exception. It is the social ideology that governs American society along race lines. Specifically white supremacist ones.

You've made a boatload of assumptions. Have the honesty to admit that.

Like what?

It was unexpected, particularly from a fellow classmate in a cultural anthropology class... where students are expected to have some objectivity. And yes, I did find it offensive, and did not respond in kind. Interesting that neither of the students from Hobbema stuck with the class. They dropped out, thus missing the opportunity to educate the rest of us in a constructive way.

It sounds like she tried to educate you by explaining to you that you are a colonizer and instead you, somehow, through immense mental gymnastics, turned it into a racial slur.

Since you've never been on the receiving end, it's not your place to make that statement.

Never been on the receiving end of what? Being called a colonizer? Yeah because I’m not a colonizer lmao

When did you receive your degree in anthropology?

Workin on it. Anyway racism is a sociological term, not an anthropological one.

Racism has existed among many peoples throughout the history of the human race.

Not really

Sorry, @inthesomeday and @Traitorfish, but my political activities these days involve voting and advocating for disabled voters' rights... as well as advocating for the repeal of the UnFair Elections Act that among other things, was intended to disenfranchise five minority Canadian groups, one of which are the aboriginal voters.

You're welcome, and I think our conversation is done. My thanks to everyone who spoke up for me.

And just like that the argument was done. Her commitment to aboriginal rights in the form of their ability to participate in the perpetuation of a colonial program that committed genocide against them had surely secured her a place in the non-colonizer ranks of white people who never even step foot in North America and thereby obviously couldn’t have possibly contributed to colonialism.

 

[inthesomeday]

You once asked me if I ever read a history book. I in turn asked if you had ever written one. I was really not being sarcastic.

No, I have never written a history book. I’ve started several and have written numerous history papers while studying, but I’ve never finished or published a complete text.

Pretty much every people on earth, including those in Africa and Asia, is living on land that belonged to some other people they kicked out at some point. Often pockets of these previous inhabitants still exist, and they are sometimes way more oppressed than American Indians. Ask the Khoisan of Central Africa, the numerous non-Tagalog peoples of the Philippines, Assyrians in the Middle East, and so on and so forth. And even the defeated people were often oppressing others. There was never a concept of "native Americans" before Columbus showed up, there were a bunch of tribes constantly at war and stealing land from each other. It's not like the Aztecs and Co. were known for their peaceful ways and respect for human rights.

So then, do you think this is like a gotcha or something? Does all this somehow disarm the very real and quantifiable argument that colonialism by European powers was and is responsible for genocide in North America?

What’s funny is you’re actually quite right on that last part. Columbus’ arrival did indeed spur the invention of the racial classes that would later serve as a powerful tool in the genocide of native peoples.

But yeah I guess you gotteem.

“The Americans shouldn’t have dropped nuclear bombs in japan.”
“You foolish child. Don’t you know the Japanese were also bad? I am very intelligent.”

But no, in this tiny head of yours it's all about "white people" oppressing "people of color" (an odious term if I ever heard one). White colonizers vs. colonized coloreds. What a sophisticated world view.

That’s a fun simplification. Here’s mine of your worldview:

Everything is fine and socioeconomic divides along race lines are biologically natural. There are only two genders and women should remain subservient to men because it’s just in their biology!

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Like what?

I don't need to quote them again. They're right here in the thread for everyone to see.

It sounds like she tried to educate you by explaining to you that you are a colonizer and instead you, somehow, through immense mental gymnastics, turned it into a racial slur.

You're making assumptions again. You weren't there, so stop "splaining" to me what actually happened, 'k?

This happened in the early 1980s. The current term "colonizer" in its current context hadn't been invented then, or at least it's not a term I ever heard. What she said was not in response to anything I said that would lead a reasonable person to come out with a wish that 100% of the population of a continent had died in a plague.

Never been on the receiving end of what? Being called a colonizer? Yeah because I’m not a colonizer lmao

You're deliberately misunderstanding my post, but whatever. Prove your ancestors weren't, at some point. You come from the same primordial soup as the rest of us, and North and South America were colonized by people who crossed the Bering land bridge (in several waves) over 10,000 years ago (the archaeological record supports this).

Workin on it. Anyway racism is a sociological term, not an anthropological one.

Actually, history and archaeology would be more apt. There's ample evidence lying around.

Not really

Fell asleep in history, did you?

And just like that the argument was done. Her commitment to aboriginal rights in the form of their ability to participate in the perpetuation of a colonial program that committed genocide against them had surely secured her a place in the non-colonizer ranks of white people who never even step foot in North America and thereby obviously couldn’t have possibly contributed to colonialism.

It's been awhile since I've seen such a mashed-up, disingenuous pile of drivel.

Since the federal government has a lot of say over what happens on reserves in many areas, why shouldn't the aboriginal people exercise their right to vote if they choose to? Why shouldn't they run for office if they want to? There have been aboriginal MPs in cabinet for many years.

 

[luiz]

so then, do you think this is like a gotcha or something? Does all this somehow disarm the very real and quantifiable argument that colonialism by European powers was and is responsible for genocide in North America?

Well there is no real and quantifiable argument that genocide is still going against Natives in North America. Nobody denies that European colonists destroyed many tribes, stole the land of others, etc. I don't see why that means that modern American citizens, who can be as poor as any native American, are somehow "colonizers". I mean would you go around calling Congolese or Philippino people "colonizers" too? Even the remaining native Americans also descend from people who stole other people's land.

People should only be held accountable for their own acts, you know.

What’s funny is you’re actually quite right on that last part. Columbus’ arrival did indeed spur the invention of the racial classes that would later serve as a powerful tool in the genocide of native peoples.

You know what else the Europeans used to help subdue the Natives? All the divisions, resentment and hatred that already existed between the different tribes due to a long history of wars, land grabs, human sacrifices, etc. But I don't see you going around calling the descendants of Azteca or Inca "colonizers", nor do I see how that would be helpful or constructive.

“The Americans shouldn’t have dropped nuclear bombs in japan.”
“You foolish child. Don’t you know the Japanese were also bad? I am very intelligent.”

Well if some imbecile starts saying the Americans were the aggressors in WW2, or that they fought a colonial war, then a reminder of Japanese actions prior to the dropping of the bomb would be very enlightening indeed.

That’s a fun simplification. Here’s mine of your worldview:

Everything is fine and socioeconomic divides along race lines are biologically natural. There are only two genders and women should remain subservient to men because it’s just in their biology!

How did gender come into this?
Also note that you're the one arguing for some race-essentialist view, not me. I'm saying that people are all the same. What "white people" did to "people of color" (argh) is no better or worse than what "people of color" did to other "people of color" and indeed in many cases to "white people". So this singling out of white people as "colonizers" is ignorant and racist (and not just to white people).

 

[Patine]

I'm saying that people are all the same. What "white people" did to "people of color" (argh) is no better or worse than what "people of color" did to other "people of color" and indeed in many cases to "white people". So this singling out of white people as "colonizers" is ignorant and racist (and not just to white people).

Indeed, look at South Africa. Saint Nelson's smiling personal charm and charisma aside, the country went from a racist regime under the Afrikaaners to another racist regime that's been about as bad under the "ANC Bantu club." And, despite the changing the guard, the East Indian-descended peoples of Durban and other coastal Natal settlements, the Koisian (as opposed to Bantu) Black Africans, those of mixed racial blood, and even the majority of Bantus are still no better off except having certain former Constitutional and legal limits lifted in theory - which in practice barely elevates their economic or social living standards.

 

[luiz]

Indeed, look at South Africa. Saint Nelson's smiling personal charm and charisma aside, the country went from a racist regime under the Afrikaaners to another racist regime that's been about as bad under the "ANC Bantu club." And, despite the changing the guard, the East Indian-descended peoples of Durban and other coastal Natal settlements, the Koisian (as opposed to Bantu) Black Africans, those of mixed racial blood, and even the majority of Bantus are still no better off except having certain former Constitutional and legal limits lifted in theory - which in practice barely elevates their economic or social living standards.

Well as much as I loathe the ANC I would say modern South Africa is definitely an improvement compared to apartheid South Africa in terms of racism, even if obviously there are some enormous problems remaining, and some new ones created under the ANC.

I mean more radical examples, like the fact that African pygmies on some cases are still held as slaves by African bantu masters. Right now, in 2018, not 1865. So singling out white people for colonialism, slavery, genocide etc, is moronic and ignorant and racist.

 

[Yeekim]

1) All whites in the New World are, undeniably, colonizers.
2) This does not mean they are responsible for the actions of their ancestors. The word can be used in a neutral way.
3) It can also be used as a slur.

 

[Patine]

Well as much as I loathe the ANC I would say modern South Africa is definitely an improvement compared to apartheid South Africa in terms of racism, even if obviously there are some enormous problems remaining, and some new ones created under the ANC.

I mean more radical examples, like the fact that African pygmies on some cases are still held as slaves by African bantu masters. Right now, in 2018, not 1865. So singling out white people for colonialism, slavery, genocide etc, is moronic and ignorant and racist.

And we mustn't forget that the vast majority of Black Slaves sent to the New World from West Africa were not kidnapped by European raiders and pirates from villages (the narrative in the old TV series, "Roots"), but sold for profit by powerful monarchs and merchants of West African nations at the time (Ghana, Songhai, Mali, the Fula States, Dahomey, Odo, etc.) to the Europeans for their own vast profit (and commodities like muskets and even cash crops grown by those very same slaves across the ocean), who thought nothing of selling their own people that way, as those nations had themselves practiced institutional slavery for centuries previously, either as their own people or their neighbours' captured in war or traded for, and these old West African kingdoms viewed slaves as just a commodity like any other.

 

[luiz]

1) All whites in the New World are, undeniably, colonizers.
.

But they aren't. They did not go there of their own free will, they were born there. "Colonizer" derives from "to colonize", it implies taking some action, which is not the case. And at any rate why single out whites from the New World? Aren't the modern Brits also Anglo-Saxon colonizers who kicked out and oppressed the original inhabitants? What about Russians in Siberia? What about Arabs all over the Middle East and North Africa? What about Brazilian Tupi Indians living near the coast, whose ancestors migrated to the coast about 1,000 years ago displacing (and killing) the original inhabitants?

What does this term even mean?

And how is a white American whose ancestors immigrated in say the 1930's any more a "colonizer" than some Philippine-American?

 

[Patine]

But they aren't. They did not go there of their own free will, they were born there. "Colonizer" derives from "to colonize", it implies taking some action, which is not the case. And at any rate why single out whites from the New World? Aren't the modern Brits also Anglo-Saxon colonizers who kicked out and oppressed the original inhabitants? What about Russians in Siberia? What about Arabs all over the Middle East and North Africa? What about Brazilian Tupi Indians living near the coast, whose ancestors migrated to the coast about 1,000 years ago displacing (and killing) the original inhabitants?

What does this term even mean?

And how is a white American whose ancestors immigrated in say the 1930's any more a "colonizer" than some Philippine-American?

The problem is, regardless of your nationality, demographic, or socio-political stance, it's become "fashionable" in the modern day to paint in broad strokes and tar large numbers with the same brush, even if undeserving, in social debates. Unless, of course, specific nitpicking serves one's agenda better for a given point. This is what a very large part of the socio-political dialogue, in terms of tactics and presentation, has down to, unfortunately.

 

[Yeekim]

But they aren't. They did not go there of their own free will, they were born there. "Colonizer" derives from "to colonize", it implies taking some action, which is not the case. And at any rate why single out whites from the New World?

But I'm not.

What about Russians in Siberia?

Colonizers.

Aren't the modern Brits also Anglo-Saxon colonizers who kicked out and oppressed the original inhabitants? What about Arabs all over the Middle East and North Africa? What about Brazilian Tupi Indians living near the coast, whose ancestors migrated to the coast about 1,000 years ago displacing (and killing) the original inhabitants?

All colonizers. It just happened so long ago pretty much no-one is left to resent them for that.

 

[Patine]

But I'm not.

Colonizers.

All colonizers. It just happened so long ago pretty much no-one is left to resent them for that.

But all modern human beings are from East Africa, and even modern East Africa was "colonized' during the great Bantu Migrations of the 9th-13th Centuries, leaving no real trace, except maybe some DNA strains, of those very original inhabitants. Thus, by that logic, everyone in the world is a "colonizer.'

 

[luiz]

But I'm not.

Colonizers.

All colonizers. It just happened so long ago pretty much no-one is left to resent them for that.

But why did you say white people in America are all colonizers, but not say Chinese or Indian (from India) or Philippino people? What's the difference between descending from some Ukrainian jew who emigrated in the 30's and from some Chinese laborer who came around the same time? What if you descend from both ?

And if even the native Americans themselves are colonizers, what's the point of this term?

 

[Yeekim]

But all modern human beings are from East Africa, and even modern East Africa was "colonized' during the great Bantu Migrations of the 9th-13th Centuries, leaving no real trace, except maybe some DNA strains, of those very original inhabitants. Thus, by that logic, everyone in the world is a "colonizer.'

Indeed. Although peoples who first arrived to the Americas or Australia didn't displace anyone else.

 

[Patine]

Indeed. Although peoples who first arrived to the Americas or Australia didn't displace anyone else.

Well, "initially," perhaps. Then they started moving around and migrating and coveting each others' initial choice of settled lands and wanting to "renegotiate" who got what - many, many times before Europeans every arrived.

 

[Yeekim]

But why did you say white people in America are all colonizers, but not say Chinese or Indian (from India) or Philippino people? What's the difference between descending from some Ukrainian jew who emigrated in the 30's and from some Chinese laborer who came around the same time? What if you descend from both ?

There is obviously no difference between whites, Chinese or Philippinos in this regard. I probably should have made that clearer. I just said whites because the argument was originally about them (and Valka, who is also white).

And if even the native Americans themselves are colonizers, what's the point of this term?

Either they're first and original inhabitants, or, as I said, there's no-one left to resent them for displacing them, so they have the best existing claim.
However, that's exactly my point - there is not much point to it. It can be used as a neutral, descriptive term that applies to almost everyone.
If someone uses this in a way that implies one is responsible for the actions of their distant forefathers, it becomes a slur.

 

[Patine]

There is obviously no difference between whites, Chinese or Philippinos in this regard. I probably should have made that clearer. I just said whites because the argument was originally about them (and Valka, who is also white).

Either they're first and original inhabitants, or, as I said, there's no-one left to resent them for displacing them, so they have the best existing claim.
However, that's exactly my point - there is not much point to it. It can be used as a neutral, descriptive term that applies to almost everyone.
If someone uses this in a way that implies one is responsible for the actions of their distant forefathers, it becomes a slur.

Okay, this thread is going in circles, has descended to every point being backed by semantics, no one is conceding anything meaningful, bad stereotypes abound from all corners, and no possible sane resolution is in the offing. Thus, I am doing what SENSIBLE do in such a case - and clicking the "unwatch thread" at the top of this page. Everyone have fun in futility!