I am. Race isn't real. It is an artificial construction we shape to whatever we please. There is no connectivity tissue to it. If capitlaism didn't enforce it it would wither and die on the vine.
Yes race is totally artificial, and capitalism has invented an intense apparatus to justify it. But the belief in it and the economic forces that drive that belief will exist as long as there is inequality and scarcity. Communism would eliminate that but there are other systems than communism and capitalism. They just wouldn't be all pseudo scientific about it like the capitalists would.
capitalism has invented an intense apparatus to justify it
You have the causality backwards. Capitalism doesn't invent things to justify racism, racism is invented to justify Capitalism. Capitalism required slavery, so it required an ideology that made it OK for certain people to become slaves. The racism was post hoc justification for what Capitalism already intended to do.
Europeans didn't go "look at these black Africans, I hate them so much I might as well enslave them" and then stumble accidentally into capitalism. They realized they required cheap start-up labor for the primitive accumulation of fixed capital and went out looking for it.
Ethnic sectarianism. Tribalism. Xenophobia. Chauvinism existed. I'm not saying nobody was ever tribal and thought they were better than everyone else.
What didn't exist though was racialism, the entire constructed ideology of a hierarchy or races strictly defined by "black" and "red" and "yellow" and "white" where a pyramid was constructed and scrambled over for rights. Where everyone understood that "white" was on the top, etc.
There's a difference between a free-for-all of selfishness between tribes, and an enforced system of hierarchy built on invented racial categories that is universally recognized and enforced. Where people are forced to accept they are on the bottom tier, or in the middle, and that's their lot in life.
This is also a modern ideology used by Liberals in the modern age, so it is more important to deconstruct it and attack it than "tribal selfishness" or "chauvinism" more broadly as it existed throughout history. We are not living among tribals, we are living among modern Liberal racists.
That isn't racism. The defining characteristic of racism compared with cultural chauvinism is that race is a permanent biological feature that is transferred from generation to generation. In other words, once a [racial slur], always a [racial slur]. For cultural chauvinism, there was a broad understanding that barbarians can be civilized if they adopted the civilization of their civilized superiors and the civilized can regress to barbarism if they adopted the savagery of their barbarian inferiors.
Racism was originally invented to persecute Jews (the Spanish had to find a way to say "once a Jew, always a Jew" when Jews were converting into Catholicism in order to not get expelled for being Jews), but it found much greater use in the enslavement of Africans. There was a general understanding at the time that Christians couldn't enslave other Christians, and while the rule was never fully observed, the Atlantic slave trade was at a level where you couldn't sweep that under the rug. Obviously, Africans who caught wind of this would try to convert into Christianity in order to not be enslaved. So, that's where racism comes into play. It's with racism that an ideological justification can be put into service for the sake of chattel slavery.
Once Europeans can say, "once a n-word, always a n-word," they have the ideological justification to enslave as many Black people as they see. That's also where you start seeing other bullshit like how Black people are stupid (so they can only be used as beast of burden) or how Black people can't feel pain (so crackers don't feel as bad when they turned a disobedient slave's back into ground beef). But more importantly, the racial character of their oppression meant that the status of slave transfers from the mother to her children. It doesn't matter if the mother can read or is only 0.05% Black because as long as she's a slave, her children will be slaves too.
No I meant what I said, capitalism is a system which has outputs. The profit motive can never be fought. Capitalists are pretty much just along for the ride. If the capitalists opt out, then another will take their place.
I'm having to describe dialectical materialism 101 in here because there are several non-marxist Liberal Idealists who are making very stupid arguments. I'm just spelling everything out very clearly because it seems some people don't know much at all about this subject
Sure, it's possible depending on the specific features and contexts which are so detailed that I won't even go into them. As well as family connections, accents, etc.
But if your Latinx friend is blue eyed and pale, and you're a very swarthy curly haired dark eyed "white" Sicilian, the friend can benefit from "white-passing privilege" relative to your white ass
Is it because of thr fair complexion? Or is it because of the resources and the legacy of being decident from the colonizer classes that provides that privilege?
both. Some people (of all races) would treat him better bc they mistake him for white, and everything nice and good they know is white, bc whites have had all the money/land since 1492
Some white people would treat him better not only because of the above implicit bias association, but consciously and explicitly because he's "one of their own", and this would be "evil" racism
I am. Race isn't real. It is an artificial construction we shape to whatever we please. There is no connectivity tissue to it. If capitlaism didn't enforce it it would wither and die on the vine.
Yes race is totally artificial, and capitalism has invented an intense apparatus to justify it. But the belief in it and the economic forces that drive that belief will exist as long as there is inequality and scarcity. Communism would eliminate that but there are other systems than communism and capitalism. They just wouldn't be all pseudo scientific about it like the capitalists would.
You have the causality backwards. Capitalism doesn't invent things to justify racism, racism is invented to justify Capitalism. Capitalism required slavery, so it required an ideology that made it OK for certain people to become slaves. The racism was post hoc justification for what Capitalism already intended to do.
Europeans didn't go "look at these black Africans, I hate them so much I might as well enslave them" and then stumble accidentally into capitalism. They realized they required cheap start-up labor for the primitive accumulation of fixed capital and went out looking for it.
I am slightly upset you said it way better than I could.
so then why did the Indoeuropeans kill every European male 4700 years ago
idt capitalism existed back then
Ethnic sectarianism. Tribalism. Xenophobia. Chauvinism existed. I'm not saying nobody was ever tribal and thought they were better than everyone else.
What didn't exist though was racialism, the entire constructed ideology of a hierarchy or races strictly defined by "black" and "red" and "yellow" and "white" where a pyramid was constructed and scrambled over for rights. Where everyone understood that "white" was on the top, etc.
There's a difference between a free-for-all of selfishness between tribes, and an enforced system of hierarchy built on invented racial categories that is universally recognized and enforced. Where people are forced to accept they are on the bottom tier, or in the middle, and that's their lot in life.
This is also a modern ideology used by Liberals in the modern age, so it is more important to deconstruct it and attack it than "tribal selfishness" or "chauvinism" more broadly as it existed throughout history. We are not living among tribals, we are living among modern Liberal racists.
That isn't racism. The defining characteristic of racism compared with cultural chauvinism is that race is a permanent biological feature that is transferred from generation to generation. In other words, once a [racial slur], always a [racial slur]. For cultural chauvinism, there was a broad understanding that barbarians can be civilized if they adopted the civilization of their civilized superiors and the civilized can regress to barbarism if they adopted the savagery of their barbarian inferiors.
Racism was originally invented to persecute Jews (the Spanish had to find a way to say "once a Jew, always a Jew" when Jews were converting into Catholicism in order to not get expelled for being Jews), but it found much greater use in the enslavement of Africans. There was a general understanding at the time that Christians couldn't enslave other Christians, and while the rule was never fully observed, the Atlantic slave trade was at a level where you couldn't sweep that under the rug. Obviously, Africans who caught wind of this would try to convert into Christianity in order to not be enslaved. So, that's where racism comes into play. It's with racism that an ideological justification can be put into service for the sake of chattel slavery.
Once Europeans can say, "once a n-word, always a n-word," they have the ideological justification to enslave as many Black people as they see. That's also where you start seeing other bullshit like how Black people are stupid (so they can only be used as beast of burden) or how Black people can't feel pain (so crackers don't feel as bad when they turned a disobedient slave's back into ground beef). But more importantly, the racial character of their oppression meant that the status of slave transfers from the mother to her children. It doesn't matter if the mother can read or is only 0.05% Black because as long as she's a slave, her children will be slaves too.
Okay so the caste system isn't racist either then
By "capitalism invented" I meant "capitalists invented", which is what you stated. Doesn't really change my point.
No I meant what I said, capitalism is a system which has outputs. The profit motive can never be fought. Capitalists are pretty much just along for the ride. If the capitalists opt out, then another will take their place.
What is the disagreement here? I'm tired of you telling me shit I've already known for decades as though you just learned it.
I'm having to describe dialectical materialism 101 in here because there are several non-marxist Liberal Idealists who are making very stupid arguments. I'm just spelling everything out very clearly because it seems some people don't know much at all about this subject
the famous artificial construction of your skin's albedo
The race realist has entered the chat. Get your calipers out everybody.
I'm asian and paler than many of my "white" co-workers. Aren't I supposed to be Yellow?
True, we should call "white" something else. Let's call it northwest asian, since europe's not a real continent
Yes, I am white but I am darker than several of my latinX friends. I still get white privilege they do not.
Sure, it's possible depending on the specific features and contexts which are so detailed that I won't even go into them. As well as family connections, accents, etc.
But if your Latinx friend is blue eyed and pale, and you're a very swarthy curly haired dark eyed "white" Sicilian, the friend can benefit from "white-passing privilege" relative to your white ass
Is it because of thr fair complexion? Or is it because of the resources and the legacy of being decident from the colonizer classes that provides that privilege?
both. Some people (of all races) would treat him better bc they mistake him for white, and everything nice and good they know is white, bc whites have had all the money/land since 1492
Some white people would treat him better not only because of the above implicit bias association, but consciously and explicitly because he's "one of their own", and this would be "evil" racism