White Guilt in North America

[humvee2800]

Okay first off I apologize for the title, it is just that I could not find a adequate name for thread.

More or less it has come to my attention just the sheer scale at which people seem to be quick to point out the injustices of colonial and present governments done against the natives of the new world, often compared to some arbitrary current political situation. It has been brought up again by Russia's annexation of Crimea.

I just have never understood the flipped ethics whenever something has to do with native populations in the Americas. The last 400 years has seen movements of peoples which have screwed over native populations all over the world. Human history has been almost entirely composed of this, and for better or worse it has lead to the way most nations are today. Further more I do not understand why such a relativistic stance is taken on the entirety of human history. Countries acting by the code of ethics of the 18th and 19th centurys is hardly fair to compare with current day events ( though some might argue that). Ultimately I just do not see what the point of such stances are in the modern era. One cant expect for all the governments of the new world to leave along with non native populations, so essentially all that leaves is trying to create a sense of guilt for guilt's sake.

Further more If I ever debate this issue I get branded as racist.

[athanaric]

I think this thread is better suited for the Political Academy.

On topic:
People have a short and very incomplete historical memory. That's why they make so much fuss over the last 300 years yet choose to ignore the 300000 years before that.

[...]Further more If I ever debate this issue I get branded as racist.

Racist

But seriously, "racism" in the way it's currently used is just another way people try to silence dissenters and threaten them with expulsion from society. In earlier times, it used to be "heresy", "infidel" etc. Different word, same concept. Sucks for those (like me) who actually use the term "racism" the way it was intended to be used.


Also, what does Russia's occupation of the Crimea have to do with it? Can you elaborate on that?

[Gromovnik]

I hear you bro. White Jesus also hates that crap, those injuns had it coming!

[Euphoric]

Okay first off I apologize for the title, it is just that I could not find a adequate name for thread.

More or less it has come to my attention just the sheer scale at which people seem to be quick to point out the injustices of colonial and present governments done against the natives of the new world, often compared to some arbitrary current political situation. It has been brought up again by Russia's annexation of Crimea.

I just have never understood the flipped ethics whenever something has to do with native populations in the Americas. The last 400 years has seen movements of peoples which have screwed over native populations all over the world. Human history has been almost entirely composed of this, and for better or worse it has lead to the way most nations are today. Further more I do not understand why such a relativistic stance is taken on the entirety of human history. Countries acting by the code of ethics of the 18th and 19th centurys is hardly fair to compare with current day events ( though some might argue that). Ultimately I just do not see what the point of such stances are in the modern era. One cant expect for all the governments of the new world to leave along with non native populations, so essentially all that leaves is trying to create a sense of guilt for guilt's sake.

"White guilt" and the modern anti-imperialist sentiment is reactionary to the Social Darwinism of the early 20th century, and is, by extension, its polar extreme. Social Darwinism being, of course, the notion that a more functional society will come to subsume a less functional society. Politically correct, anti-imperialist white guilt is an illogical stance, because it assumes Western society should feel guilty for improving its condition at the expense of others. Thomas Malthus was right when he argued that there are a limited amount of resources on Earth; when one nation gains another loses. So unless we are all to live in a global, socialist "utopia," I feel that being concerned for the welfare of your own nation is justified.

Further more If I ever debate this issue I get branded as racist.

People toss the word "racist" around so much that it's starting to lose its meaning. Don't worry about their ad hominems, particularly if you feel logically justified in what you are arguing.

[Border Patrol]

There are a limited number of resources that's true, but we have yet to reach the point in our development where lack of raw materials is what causes lack of resources rather than lack of infrastructure to exploit them. Essentially this means that we live in a time of plenty so long as we work together. That's my stance on the issue anyways. Borders need a little breaking.

[Euphoric]

There are a limited number of resources that's true, but we have yet to reach the point in our development where lack of raw materials is what causes lack of resources rather than lack of infrastructure to exploit them. Essentially this means that we live in a time of plenty so long as we work together. That's my stance on the issue anyways. Borders need a little breaking.

Perhaps there is enough calories to go around, but with resources like oil, water, and precious metals, there are haves and have-nots.

[Tiberios]

​Moved to the Political Academy.

[Stavroforos]

The idea that people who are living hundreds of years after a fact should feel any guilt or pride in it seems ridiculous.

[hellheaven1987]

So when Greeks would forgive Turks?

[Stavroforos]

Probably when you decide to make a post with some substance to it, or at least some topicality.

[ivan_the_terrible]

Nothing annoys me more than ultra-liberal guilt-tripping, but that doesn't change the fact that some people are today materially disadvantaged from the outset as a direct result of the abuse their group (typically ethnic group) has suffered at the hands of another group. While individual members of this other group should not feel guilty for the actions of their ancestors, the fact remains that the respective lifestyles of the two groups are the way they are in part because of these actions.

The onus is therefore probably on the descendants of the exploiters to compensate the descendants of the exploitees to such a level where the latter at least begin their lives with no significant disadvantages. This is in a perfect world, though. In the real world we have inter-ethnic mixing going back generations, cultural influence going both ways, and individual rights, all of which complicate the picture to the point where a proper redress is impossible.

The best compromise, in my opinion, is a welfare policy that strives to give an acceptable initial level of opportunity for all citizens, regardless of heritage.

[Count of Montesano]

Guilt is never a healthy emotion, especially guilt for what happened a hundred plus years ago. That being said, a lot of white Americans - and especially a lot of conservatives - like to completely downplay how Native and African Americans were treated. The stuff we did at places like Wounded Knee are right up there in cruelty with the worst stuff that the German and Soviet army did in WW II. I agree with the OP that there were certain tribes like the Commanche or Apache which would never get along peaceably with a civilized neighbor. That doesn't excuse what we did to civilized tribes like the Cherokee who very much wanted to become part of the US, or beaten tribes like the Souix which we just had to grind into the ground.

And to top it off, minorities are still getting a raw deal in "post racial" America. Numerous reservations are essentially third-world countries within America, and people of color still face an uphill battle in terms of unemployment and discrimination.

[SinerAthin]

White guilt isn't the only problem we face these days.

You also face a lot of people dodging responsibility for their current situations by blaming it all on the great empires of the 18th century.

Take Africa for instance. They could have been a prosperous continent of wealth and culture despite the exploitation they had suffered if they had only chosen to band together & focus on progress.

[Caelifer_1991]

White guilt isn't the only problem we face these days.

You also face a lot of people dodging responsibility for their current situations by blaming it all on the great empires of the 18th century.

Take Africa for instance. They could have been a prosperous continent of wealth and culture despite the exploitation they had suffered if they had only chosen to band together & focus on progress.

That's like saying that if only England and France had chosen to band together and focus on progress that the hundred years war could have been ended early and the industrial revolution brought forward, eg; its rediculous. Just as English and French borders during the hundred years war could not persist in perpetuity, neither could African borders immediately following colonisation, many of such borders in the intervening decades have since be repaired, yet many others remain to be remade before the countries in question can remove themselves from the test of strength that will form those new borders, to a new dawn whereby they may grow at a rate more akin to the rest of Africa and to Asia.

Colonial occupation of Africa only ended in its entirety in the mid 1980s, to expect that they could reform themselves into viable states that accurately reflected the individual cultures requiring representation any faster than they have, when all other regions on Earth have required centuries or millenia to do so, would be rediculous.

Its also worth mentioning in all this that the majority of Africa has also in fact, since the mid to late 90s, been growing at an ever increasing rate; the idea that Africa is simply floundering about achieving nothing more than to perpetuate eternal conflict, fueled by blood diamonds and debt, belongs in the 1970s and 1980s, aka, during those years that it was actually true - in the years immediately following independence. Those countries, the exceptions out of the 54 countries of Africa, that are still doing as poorly as the stereotype would suggest, are almost exclusively those that are still dealing with the lingering problems associated with colonialism, yet you see people talk about such places as the Congo and the difficulties they experience currently, as if there is no incongruence with such oddities as the existence of two Congo's side by side, with no questions asked as to why Katanga for instance might have wanted independence, and no actual curiosity as to why the assorted groups that comprise the inner and eastern parts of the Congo may act as if they having nothing to do with each other and as such have such difficulty forming a nation (take a guess).

In short, Africa for the most part has solved many of the problems it has inherited at a rate if anything significantly faster than could have been expected of it, and those countries that have yet to do so, can indeed trace their problems almost exclusively to colonialism... and before you ask, no, I don't support white guilt either, merely the irradication of opinions presumably such as yours that all of Africa is a hellhole and that it is that way due almost entirely due the people that live there, when both arguments are quite clearly false.

[Ciciro]

White guilt isn't the only problem we face these days.

You also face a lot of people dodging responsibility for their current situations by blaming it all on the great empires of the 18th century.

Take Africa for instance. They could have been a prosperous continent of wealth and culture despite the exploitation they had suffered if they had only chosen to band together & focus on progress.

... if of course you don't consider that all Africans don't share the same language, culture, let alone religion. And the arbitrary lines made by those "Great Empires" didn't really help either.

[What]

Probably because those minorities still suffer from statistically-verifiable discrimination on a day-to-day basis in our societies. It's not so much about the discrimination that was. It's more about the fact that those same cultural roots of discrimination exist today and that people would rather sweep racism under the rug than confront and overcome it. Those past events merely are a symbol of discrimination that never ended, only lessened.

[Euphoric]

Probably because those minorities still suffer from statistically-verifiable discrimination on a day-to-day basis in our societies. It's not so much about the discrimination that was. It's more about the fact that those same cultural roots of discrimination exist today and that people would rather sweep racism under the rug than confront and overcome it. Those past events merely are a symbol of discrimination that never ended, only lessened.

Perhaps instead of dwelling on the negatives of (slightly) lingering ethnic prejudices, you could dwell on the positives? Or, if you insist on dwelling on the negative, perhaps you could instead shift your gaze to places like Sub-Saharan Africa where ethnic cleansing still happens on a daily basis?

Why must the West be held to the standards of an idealistic race-free utopia? Is such a thing even possible give what we know of human psychology?

[What]

Perhaps instead of dwelling on the negatives of (slightly) lingering ethnic prejudices, you could dwell on the positives?

If we spent our entire lives dwelling on the positives, nothing would ever get done.

Or, if you insist on dwelling on the negative, perhaps you could instead shift your gaze to places like Sub-Saharan Africa where ethnic cleansing still happens on a daily basis?

Yeah, some populations in Sub-Saharan Africa commit atrocious acts of violence against one another, which is worse than not getting the job because your employer has a subconscious dislike of people of your ethnicity. So what? Getting kicked in the privates isn't as bad as being set on fire, but I don't particularly like it anyway.

Why must the West be held to the standards of an idealistic race-free utopia?

If you asked the average person from the 1800s if whites were capable of living in harmony with blacks in a relatively equitable society, they'd tell you two things. First, go away because you're Italian and we don't serve your kind here. Second, no, it'll dissolve into a race war, the blacks will rape all our daughters, and whites will be genocided out of existence for their hubris. Lo and behold, society is intact, and not as terrible as it used to be, rather than worse.

That said, I'm not advocating that we have an idealistic race-free utopia, just that we make baby steps from where we are now. Why? Because we're wealthy, highly educated, and we have the means and resources to do so.

Is such a thing even possible give what we know of human psychology?

Is such a thing impossible given what we know of human psychology? Irish individuals used to be highly discriminated against and weren't even thought of as white in the US. Now they're an integral part of whiteness and I'd think it was unusual if a police officer pulled someone over for having red hair. Who knows what could happen in 200 years with the right mindset and tools?

[Euphoric]

If we spent our entire lives dwelling on the positives, nothing would ever get done.

Agreed, however, part of the problem is that few people try to "get things done" with regards to race relations in the West. Certain interests would rather have the legacy of racism, imperialism, and colonialism remain a festering wound that could be called upon to rally the base.

Yeah, some populations in Sub-Saharan Africa commit atrocious acts of violence against one another, which is worse than not getting the job because your employer has a subconscious dislike of people of your ethnicity. So what? Getting kicked in the privates isn't as bad as being set on fire, but I don't particularly like it anyway.

But surely you would try to prevent yourself from being set on fire before you would prevent yourself from being kicked in the privates? If combating racism is so important to so many people, than why aren't they addressing the bigger issue (Sub-Saharan African genocide), before dealing with what is comparatively petty (such as minor variations in wage)?

The same could be said of feminists. If women's rights are such a big deal to so many feminists, then why are they more interested in the gender gap than they are interested in female mutilations, the execution of women, and the prohibition of women's education?

The reality of the matter is that, like feminism, the debate over racial equality in the West derives from a selfish desire to help ones self before helping those in greater need.

That said, I'm not advocating that we have an idealistic race-free utopia, just that we make baby steps from where we are now. Why? Because we're wealthy, highly educated, and we have the means and resources to do so.

Regardless, holding the West to the unachievable standards of perfection is unrealistic. And, when you consider the way that many countries deal with race-relations, it is hypocritical to be critical of one without being critical of the other.

Is such a thing impossible given what we know of human psychology? Irish individuals used to be highly discriminated against and weren't even thought of as white in the US. Now they're an integral part of whiteness and I'd think it was unusual if a police officer pulled someone over for having red hair. Who knows what could happen in 200 years with the right mindset and tools?

But xenophobia is a genetically favorable trait. As a result, it is deeply ingrained into both our psyche and, by extension, our culture, and will continue to pervade human interaction, despite how much we may try to bury it with bravado.

[Caelifer_1991]

Agreed, however, part of the problem is that few people try to "get things done" with regards to race relations in the West. Certain interests would rather have the legacy of racism, imperialism, and colonialism remain a festering wound that could be called upon to rally the base.



But surely you would try to prevent yourself from being set on fire before you would prevent yourself from being kicked in the privates? If combating racism is so important to so many people, than why aren't they addressing the bigger issue (Sub-Saharan African genocide), before dealing with what is comparatively petty (such as minor variations in wage)?

The same could be said of feminists. If women's rights are such a big deal to so many feminists, then why are they more interested in the gender gap than they are interested in female mutilations, the execution of women, and the prohibition of women's education?

The reality of the matter is that, like feminism, the debate over racial equality in the West derives from a selfish desire to help ones self before helping those in greater need.



Regardless, holding the West to the unachievable standards of perfection is unrealistic. And, when you consider the way that many countries deal with race-relations, it is hypocritical to be critical of one without being critical of the other.



But xenophobia is a genetically favorable trait. As a result, it is deeply ingrained into both our psyche and, by extension, our culture, and will continue to pervade human interaction, despite how much we may try to bury it with bravado.

When a disorganised and poorly equipped army attempts to remake national borders such that civilian casualties are likely to be excessive, and the areas in question are home to a specific ethnic group, it is often termed as genocide. More often than not, actual genocidal tendencies and governmental policy have nothing to do with it; thus attempting to prevent 'genocide' is often akin to attempting to prevent war, and as war is inevitable in the recreation of national borders, and such borders are impractical, "genocide", as the media likes to paint it, is a systemic process that will continue so long as bordering nations have a legitmate reason to covet the lands of the other.

One might wonder of course why such countries do not merely exchange land for other land, in mutually benficial diplomatic arrangements. The reason of course is the same as for why no other continent has ever done so, that countries, in the spirit of competition, do not seek fair arrangements, but to strengthen themselves. Even where fair arrangements could be conceived of, they are impossible.

Combating genocide in Africa (which is massively overplayed btw, as genuine genocide can only be said to exist in the DRCongo and Sudan, in specific regions among two countries on a continent of 54 countries altogether) in the name of combating racism would be both pointless and ineffective, in fact to do so would be to perpetuate colonial borders and as such could be considered, ironically, to be racist in and of itself to a far greater extent than simply allowing African countries to sort it out amongst themselves.

As regards the nature of racism itself, while conflict between various ethnic groups in Africa can be considered to be racist (as there is no technical term for race, as such any genetic variation can be considered sufficient to consider any correlating group a race in and of itself), the term is more often associated with the more traditional races of white, black and asian (though various other categories such as hispanic and middle eastern are occasionally added as political convenience demands). By such a definition, no genocide in Africa among African ethnic groups could be considered racist, and would be a different issue entirely.

When addressing racism as such, it would only follow that it would be in regards to relations between traditional ethnic groups, and thus in those countries where diversity is substantial, such as in the Americas, the US is needless to say as good an example as any. To compare the reactions of people to racism as it exists in the US for example, as with what, with different taxonomy, might be considered racism in Africa (other than where it is between traditional races, eg; South Africa) is a false comparison, as the premise of such a comparison would depend upon a normalisation of the definition of race itself, as has not happened, and even if it had, would depend upon the reasons for such being equally related to race itself in both cases, which is likewise false.

As for feminists and the rest of the post, I'll leave that out, as to discuss it would be to create a tangent offset from the main discussion.

As for xenophobia, it can only be considered to be a logical trait where it can be considered that the other group in question is likely to be hostile and to attempt to harm the group to which one belongs. In an economy whereby the associated tasks required for success are universal among its citizens (as has been the case since segregation, apartheid, etc), and where no intrinsic alteration in the cognitive faculties of each group can be determined to exist that might correspondingly alter the strategies by which to attain such success, xenophobia exhibits no logical function. It is a vestige of stone age tribal strategies, and the people that exhibit such tendancies must likewise be considered to be as backward and undeveloped as the circumstances from which such tendencies may arise. Such individuals must thus be reeducated by both the establishment and their peers in order to develop their psychological development to an extent sufficient that they may serve a constructive role in modern society.