All white people are racist?

[beensaidbefore]

According to this person anyway.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/41127404/loreal-sacks-first-transgender-model-munroe-bergdorf

Way to go, fight racism with racism.😧

[lyonhibs]

"ya'll" :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[cabbageandribs1875]

well done L'oreal

[snooky]

"All white people are racist" is a racist statement in itself.
:doh:

[Nameless]

I'm sure we are all homophobes too.

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk

[NAE NOOKIE]

The life of Brian springs to mind ............ 'only the true messiah denies his divinity' ..... Or if you are this woman 'denying you are a racist means you are a racist'

I'm heartened by her admission that me being a racist isn't my fault because the very fact that I am a white guy born into a European society means I have had all the privilege and protection which comes with that and therefor I will naturally be a racist whether I like it or not because merely being a part of that society, which I have had no responsibility for building in a historical sense, is enough to make me racist.

What a pile of bull****....... Some folk love to play the downtrodden underdog and the more people they can find to pin the blame on heightens their ability to wallow in the sense of oppression that makes them feel so good ...... saying all white people are racist based on her cock eyed view of the world is probably the most racist thing I have ever heard anybody come out with.

Stupid woman.

[Colr]

According to this person anyway.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/41127404/loreal-sacks-first-transgender-model-munroe-bergdorf

Way to go, fight racism with racism.😧

What an idiot. Should kow better.

[Pete]

She's trying to justify her own racism by sounding clever.

A bitter nonentity who is probably jumping on a bandwagon.

[blackpoolhibs]

The life of Brian springs to mind ............ 'only the true messiah denies his divinity' ..... Or if you are this woman 'denying you are a racist means you are a racist'

I'm heartened by her admission that me being a racist isn't my fault because the very fact that I am a white guy born into a European society means I have had all the privilege and protection which comes with that and therefor I will naturally be a racist whether I like it or not because merely being a part of that society, which I have had no responsibility for building in a historical sense, is enough to make me racist.

What a pile of bull****....... Some folk love to play the downtrodden underdog and the more people they can find to pin the blame on heightens their ability to wallow in the sense of oppression that makes them feel so good ...... saying all white people are racist based on her cock eyed view of the world is probably the most racist thing I have ever heard anybody come out with.

Stupid woman.

:doh:

[Slavers]

This woman is a chip on the shoulder racist. There is no more tolerant society on earth greater than western civilisation.

I think She has been reading far too much extreme leftwing brainwashing propaganda.

[--------]

"Honestly I don't have energy to talk about the racial violence of white people any more. Yes ALL white people. Because most of ya'll don't even realise or refuse to acknowledge that your existence, privilege and success as a race is built on the backs, blood and death of people of colour. Your entire existence is drenched in racism."

I can see why that would irritate a company like L'Oreal. I think she got a little
bit too close to the bone there. Never tell the truth to the people who pay you. :cool2:

What she said later clarifies her point:

"When I stated that 'all white people are racist', I was addressing that fact that western society as a whole, is a system rooted in white supremacy - designed to benefit, prioritise and protect white people before anyone of any other race. Unknowingly, white people are socialised to be racist from birth onwards. It is not something genetic. No one is born racist."

To my mind, that's an uncomfortably clear expression of a truth most of us in Western Europe and North America really don't realise or acknowledge. Just as the Victorians closed their eyes to the fact that THEIR prosperity the dynamic of their society was rooted in and growing from the misery of the inhabitants of the industrial slums ...

Perhaps what she should bear in mind is that not all 'white' people have white skins.

[NAE NOOKIE]

"Honestly I don't have energy to talk about the racial violence of white people any more. Yes ALL white people. Because most of ya'll don't even realise or refuse to acknowledge that your existence, privilege and success as a race is built on the backs, blood and death of people of colour. Your entire existence is drenched in racism."

I can see why that would irritate a company like L'Oreal. I think she got a little
bit too close to the bone there. Never tell the truth to the people who pay you. :cool2:

What she said later clarifies her point:

"When I stated that 'all white people are racist', I was addressing that fact that western society as a whole, is a system rooted in white supremacy - designed to benefit, prioritise and protect white people before anyone of any other race. Unknowingly, white people are socialised to be racist from birth onwards. It is not something genetic. No one is born racist."

To my mind, that's an uncomfortably clear expression of a truth most of us in Western Europe and North America really don't realise or acknowledge. Just as the Victorians closed their eyes to the fact that THEIR prosperity the dynamic of their society was rooted in and growing from the misery of the inhabitants of the industrial slums ...

Perhaps what she should bear in mind is that not all 'white' people have white skins.

I have difficulty grasping this statement in the context of modern western society ...... Are there examples in legislation of any 'western' country where discrimination against 'people of colour' is written into law or not criminalised in law be that criminal or corporate law? If not what form does her use of the phrase "designed to prioritise and protect white people before any other race" take.

I would be prepared to acknowledge the fact that certain powerful individuals or even corporate bodies apply their personal racism in certain situations, for example to a job applicant ...... but that to me does not go a long way to supporting her assertion that western society is "designed" to discriminate against ethnic minorities, that suggests a deliberate and widespread policy which is supported by the whole of society, individual cases aside I see little supporting evidence for that.

[snooky]

"Honestly I don't have energy to talk about the racial violence of white people any more. Yes ALL white people. Because most of ya'll don't even realise or refuse to acknowledge that your existence, privilege and success as a race is built on the backs, blood and death of people of colour. Your entire existence is drenched in racism."

I can see why that would irritate a company like L'Oreal. I think she got a little
bit too close to the bone there. Never tell the truth to the people who pay you. :cool2:

What she said later clarifies her point:

"When I stated that 'all white people are racist', I was addressing that fact that western society as a whole, is a system rooted in white supremacy - designed to benefit, prioritise and protect white people before anyone of any other race. Unknowingly, white people are socialised to be racist from birth onwards. It is not something genetic. No one is born racist."

To my mind, that's an uncomfortably clear expression of a truth most of us in Western Europe and North America really don't realise or acknowledge. Just as the Victorians closed their eyes to the fact that THEIR prosperity the dynamic of their society was rooted in and growing from the misery of the inhabitants of the industrial slums ...

Perhaps what she should bear in mind is that not all 'white' people have white skins.


For God's sake somebody take that shovel from her before she gets any deeper.

[One Day Soon]

"Honestly I don't have energy to talk about the racial violence of white people any more. Yes ALL white people. Because most of ya'll don't even realise or refuse to acknowledge that your existence, privilege and success as a race is built on the backs, blood and death of people of colour. Your entire existence is drenched in racism."

I can see why that would irritate a company like L'Oreal. I think she got a little
bit too close to the bone there. Never tell the truth to the people who pay you. :cool2:

What she said later clarifies her point:

"When I stated that 'all white people are racist', I was addressing that fact that western society as a whole, is a system rooted in white supremacy - designed to benefit, prioritise and protect white people before anyone of any other race. Unknowingly, white people are socialised to be racist from birth onwards. It is not something genetic. No one is born racist."

To my mind, that's an uncomfortably clear expression of a truth most of us in Western Europe and North America really don't realise or acknowledge. Just as the Victorians closed their eyes to the fact that THEIR prosperity the dynamic of their society was rooted in and growing from the misery of the inhabitants of the industrial slums ...

Perhaps what she should bear in mind is that not all 'white' people have white skins.


So white isn't a skin colour, it's a state of mind?

[Slavers]

So white isn't a skin colour, it's a state of mind?

I think he means not all white people are racist.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I can kind of see her point i think - that western (i.e. white) society has been built to suit, protect and benefit western/ white people - surely thats just common sense.

Are there any societies anywhere in the world that are designed specifically to benefit, privilege, support a small minority over a large majority? I can think of Rwanda, and that didnt end well.

I do wonder if there are any societies that habe done more to integrate their minorities than the western / white world?

[hibsbollah]

I can kind of see her point i think - that western (i.e. white) society has been built to suit, protect and benefit western/ white people - surely thats just common sense.

Are there any societies anywhere in the world that are designed specifically to benefit, privilege, support a small minority over a large majority? I can think of Rwanda, and that didnt end well.

I do wonder if there are any societies that habe done more to integrate their minorities than the western / white world?

Historically, almost everyone. When the main monotheistic religions started rubbing up against each other, the middle ages was characterised by remarkable tolerance. This applied equally to the Muslim majority giving equal rights to the Jewish and Christian minorities in almohad Spain north africa, and Jews Christians and Muslims lived in almost constant peace and mutual coexistence until stirred up by their rulers with crusades or pogroms or jihad, which was almost always about getting more land and money. Societies become 'racist' (meaningless word becoming increasingly so as racist people deny its reality) when they don't integrate (apartheid south africa, early 20th century Japan and Korea).

I agree with the author that western society is inherently racist because it is built on inherent inequalities based on race. But her words of course are taken out of context, she's not saying all white people are actively racist, or we need to apologise for something. But it's part of our cultural makeup.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Historically, almost everyone. When the main monotheistic religions started rubbing up against each other, the middle ages was characterised by remarkable tolerance. This applied equally to the Muslim majority giving equal rights to the Jewish and Christian minorities in almohad Spain north africa, and Jews Christians and Muslims lived in almost constant peace and mutual coexistence until stirred up by their rulers with crusades or pogroms or jihad, which was almost always about getting more land and money. Societies become 'racist' (meaningless word becoming increasingly so as racist people deny its reality) when they don't integrate (apartheid south africa, early 20th century Japan and Korea).

I agree with the author that western society is inherently racist because it is built on inherent inequalities based on race. But her words of course are taken out of context, she's not saying all white people are actively racist, or we need to apologise for something. But it's part of our cultural makeup.

So everyone always got on, except when they didnt..😊 I think you have a very rosy picture of the world and of history.

I dont believe the west is racist, but i do think to live in a minority anywhere, where by definition you arr not the norm means you will, at times not fit the mould - i suppose the guardian would call that 'structural' or 'institutional' racism, a term that is hugely misused and misunderstood in my opinion.

I dont think the west is built on inequality, i think for whatever reason we just happened to develop quicker amd win the battle of civilisations during that period. I doubt very much that if the situation had been reversed, and africa had colonised europe, they wouls have treated us any better. At the time, what we did was what everyone was doing, we were just better and more efficient at it.

Ultinately its just some click bait article that some indignant writer has produced to generate interest- it matters not a jot in the real world and will make no difference to anybody's lives, least of all those discriminated against.

[hibsbollah]

So everyone always got on, except when they didnt..😊 I think you have a very rosy picture of the world and of history.

I dont believe the west is racist, but i do think to live in a minority anywhere, where by definition you arr not the norm means you will, at times not fit the mould - i suppose the guardian would call that 'structural' or 'institutional' racism, a term that is hugely misused and misunderstood in my opinion.

I dont think the west is built on inequality, i think for whatever reason we just happened to develop quicker amd win the battle of civilisations during that period. I doubt very much that if the situation had been reversed, and africa had colonised europe, they wouls have treated us any better. At the time, what we did was what everyone was doing, we were just better and more efficient at it.

Ultinately its just some click bait article that some indignant writer has produced to generate interest- it matters not a jot in the real world and will make no difference to anybody's lives, least of all those discriminated against.

I absolutely don't have a rosy view of the world. World history is a grim place to delve into, with lots of misery and farce. But its fairly demonstrable that cultures have, by and large, coexisted surprisingly well. Particularly when various 'groups' however you define this, realised there was lots of good stuff to trade. War, when it has interrupted this process, isn't really relevant to the overall interaction between ordinary people, it was just the business of kings.

[Pretty Boy]

Having read what's been reported then what she actually said along with her follow up statement I think she has a point. I don't see how anyone can read what she said and take from it that she has called every white individual in the world a racist.

[RyeSloan]

I absolutely don't have a rosy view of the world. World history is a grim place to delve into, with lots of misery and farce. But its fairly demonstrable that cultures have, by and large, coexisted surprisingly well. Particularly when various 'groups' however you define this, realised there was lots of good stuff to trade. War, when it has interrupted this process, isn't really relevant to the overall interaction between ordinary people, it was just the business of kings.

Aye those Nordic dudes just loved coming over here and doing a bit of fair bartering in the past...

And old Hannibal was simply doing an early version of the grand tour!

The ottomans were simply trying to find folk to try out their furniture and who can forget the cuddly romans who just wanted more space for their road building.


[emoji12][emoji12]

[Hibrandenburg]

Everybody, no matter what their race or creed is, is xenophobic. We're all initially frightened of that what is strange to us. It's the conscious decisions we make when confronted with something or someone different that is relevant. Personality, education and the environment we live in dictates how we react to things/people that are alien to what we know and understand. If we don't know or understand what's in front of us then we're genetically programmed to treat it with suspicion.

[One Day Soon]

Historically, almost everyone. When the main monotheistic religions started rubbing up against each other, the middle ages was characterised by remarkable tolerance. This applied equally to the Muslim majority giving equal rights to the Jewish and Christian minorities in almohad Spain north africa, and Jews Christians and Muslims lived in almost constant peace and mutual coexistence until stirred up by their rulers with crusades or pogroms or jihad, which was almost always about getting more land and money. Societies become 'racist' (meaningless word becoming increasingly so as racist people deny its reality) when they don't integrate (apartheid south africa, early 20th century Japan and Korea).

I agree with the author that western society is inherently racist because it is built on inherent inequalities based on race. But her words of course are taken out of context, she's not saying all white people are actively racist, or we need to apologise for something. But it's part of our cultural makeup.


From what date are you defining the beginning of white/western society and in which geographical area? The white/West has a record of integrating minorities often better and rarely worse than most other cultures globally. You could take Rome as a starting point and either argue that it was a brutal empire or credibly claim that almost anyone willing to join it was integrated and accommodated - from soldiers, traders and tribes through to kings. Or that both are true - and Rome was largely white and Western. In more contemporary times I'm struggling to think of anywhere more progressive than Western Europe in terms of its willingness to accommodate the volume of refugees from the Middle East and Africa.

History - and particularly the history of wars - cannot be reduced to an analysis that says they only took place because of Kings. There are much wider and more profound factors at work throughout history than the 'great man' theory. Climate, to take just one example, is increasingly now recognised as having made regular interventions in major historical upheavals as has religion, gender, currency devaluation, price inflation, disease, famine and of course the politics of the crowd. Any and all of these would regularly manifest consequences taken out on minorities because society has always and still does love a scapegoat - the intervention of kings is rarely required for that. Pogroms against the Jews in 15th century Spain for example have a lot more to do with the after effects of attempts to control money supply in order to reduce rampant inflation than to a king's orders for a pogrom. The effect of the policy on money was to make it almost impossible for people with debts to meaningfully repay them and that impacted on Jews and others dramatically because they were most active in the commercial and financial sectors in which this convulsion occurred. Unhappy medieval mobs did not have far to look for a convenient scapegoat.

More recently Hitler was only able to mobilise his giant obscenity because the financial collapse of the Weimar Republic seduced a sufficient proportion of the German population into believing that an 'other' was responsible or should be made responsible. War is not simply the business of kings - like policing, it can only take place with consent. While the people may not throughout history have the immediate agency of kings, they are almost always the opinion, cultural and sentimental force without which the will of kings and others cannot prevail. To bring that analogy up to date, we only have idiots like Trump, May and Corbyn because even bigger idiots - the people - choose to put them in power.

I do not agree that "western society is inherently racist because it is built on inherent inequalities based on race". I do however think it was inherently unequal because it was built on inequalities based on class. I also think it is now more accurate to say that increasingly the inequality is based on a more sophisticated and advanced set of divisions built around wealth - regardless of class. Get ready for a new class of social media/digital platform billionaires as the new politicians using their wealth and their digital reach to advance to office.

[hibsbollah]

Its going to get time consuming to respond to all of that AND keep vaguely on topic, especially as the OP was based on a misinterpretation in the first place.

A few things though, I think you're on very shaky ground by dismissing racial factors in equality. Race AND class AND modern wealth divisions contribute to inequality. In fact I think class and race will continue to be the more relevant in the future, sadly.

By describing Romes willingness to allow its subjects to become fully paid up members of the empire you're making my case for me, that cultures generally integrate more easily than is imagined. I wouldn't define Roman empire as a contemporary western society.

And you've misunderstood my comment about war being the business of kings. I'm not saying war 'only takes place because of kings', im saying that war does not represent a battle between different races/ethnicities/cultures, it represents decisions taken by leaders, and hence the existence of war isn't evidence of inevitable racial division. This remains true whether wars are fought over scant natural resources, money lenders or whatever else.

[beensaidbefore]

[QUOTE=hibsbollah;5163233]Its going to get time consuming to respond to all of that AND keep vaguely on topic, especially as the OP was based on a misinterpretation in the first place.

A few things though, I think you're on very shaky ground by dismissing racial factors in equality. Race AND class AND modern wealth divisions contribute to inequality. In fact I think class and race will continue to be the more relevant in the future, sadly.

By describing Romes willingness to allow its subjects to become fully paid up members of the empire you're making my case for me, that cultures generally integrate more easily than is imagined. I wouldn't define Roman empire as a contemporary western society.

And you've misunderstood my comment about war being the business of kings. I'm not saying war 'only takes place because of kings', im saying that war does not represent a battle between different races/ethnicities/cultures, it represents decisions taken by leaders, and hence the existence of war isn't evidence of inevitable racial division. This remains true whether wars are fought over scant natural resources, money lenders or whatever else.[/QU

I don't think I misinterpreted the article TBH. Her alleged original comments were racist in my view. She later tried to clear up what she had meant, but I think there was an element of back peddling.

Fwiw I actually understand what she is implying and agree, to a certain extent.

The conversation has moved into areas I don't really know much about, so keep it up, interesting reading.😊

[Future17]

Having read what's been reported then what she actually said along with her follow up statement I think she has a point. I don't see how anyone can read what she said and take from it that she has called every white individual in the world a racist.

I think it's perfectly legitimate to interpret the quote, ""Honestly I don't have energy to talk about the racial violence of white people any more. Yes ALL white people. " as her accusing all white people of racial violence and, therefore, of being racist.

On her wider point, why is the present day success of some white people built on racism, but the present day success of some black people isn't?

[calumhibee1]

I think it's perfectly legitimate to interpret the quote, ""Honestly I don't have energy to talk about the racial violence of white people any more. Yes ALL white people. " as her accusing all white people of racial violence and, therefore, of being racist.

On her wider point, why is the present day success of some white people built on racism, but the present day success of some black people isn't?

Exactly. The woman is a racist fanny.