How does a white person in North America prove that they aren't racist? (serious)

[Teedub]

Interesting article from Steve Sailer, who has been mentioned in this thread.

http://isteve.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/unbearable-whiteness-of-soccer.html

Regardless of his point, that is relevant to what I've been saying on this thread, he makes some interesting points:

Let’s look at ESPN’s list from earlier this year of the “Top 50 players of the World Cup.” The five best players in the world -- Lionel Messi of Argentina (who is of Italian descent), Christiano Ronaldo of Portugal (a Tim Tebow-lookalike), Wayne Rooney of England, Kaka of Brazil (who is from an upper middle-class family), and Xavi of Spain --are white.

Out of the top 10, eight are white and two from West Africa. Out of the top 50, the proportions look similar. Judging from their pictures, I would say 10 are black, one is mostly white but clearly part black, and the other 39 look more or less white. None of the top 50 are East Asian or South Asian, and I don’t see any that are as mestizo-looking as, say, Diego Maradona, the star of the 1986 World Cup.

In contrast, only one American-born white guy has been selected to the NBA All Star game in the last half dozen years. Most of the prestige positions in the NFL other than quarterback are dominated by blacks.

Of the soccer top 50, 24 are white guys from the six sunny powers of Spain (9 of the top 50), Italy, Portugal, Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay. In other words, almost half of the global soccer superstars are Southern Europeans. As baseball discovered back in the days of Joe DiMaggio, it doesn’t really hurt your sport’s popularity to have stylish Mediterranean guys as stars. ...

FIFA could change the rules to make soccer more a test of explosiveness and sprinting ability, like American sports...

 

[Samseau]

And a white Argentinian would call an American a gringo, even though the American is just as white as the Argentinian. What's your point?

Gringo just means foreigner, it isn't a racial categorization. It's completely different to the Hispanic thing where George Lopez and Ricky Martin are deemed the same race!

I'd say it's used as both. I've had plenty of Spanish speaking immigrants in the USA refer to me as "gringo." They're the foreigners, and yet they refer to me as gringo.

The same goes for Hispanic. It's used to refer to cultural and racial differences.

Whether these differences are significant is another matter, but since both the left and right in the USA makes a big deal out this distinction it isn't going away anytime soon.

 

[speakeasy]

And a white Argentinian would call an American a gringo, even though the American is just as white as the Argentinian. What's your point?

Gringo just means foreigner, it doesn't have anything to do with race.

Teedub is spot on in this thread. There is so much ignorance on the subject of Hispanics/Latinos. Many white Americans are Nordicists. They only consider Caucasians of northern European ancestry to be "true" whites. The opposing view is Pan-Aryanism. Where whites are more broadly defined and white phenotype is recognized outside of N. Europe as well, to places like Argentina, Lebanon, Spain, Syria. To white Americans, if you don't look like you could've stepped off the Mayflower, then you're not white. Which is ridiculous. Steve Jobs was an Arab, and he was also white. All those people who roughly "look white" share some common ancestry that goes back to the Caucasus mountains. To me they are all white. Though obviously, culture and ethnicity still come into play. But racially, Steve Jobs is as white as Mitt Romney. If he looks like he could come from Europe, he's white. End of issue. Many Hispanics look like they could come from Europe, many have negligible black or indigenous ancestry, but because they have a bit of a tan and their last name is Valdez, white Americans have decided they are not white. Even though there are people in Italy and Spain who look exactly the same way. It's weird to me.

 

[Teedub]

And a white Argentinian would call an American a gringo, even though the American is just as white as the Argentinian. What's your point?

Gringo just means foreigner, it isn't a racial categorization. It's completely different to the Hispanic thing where George Lopez and Ricky Martin are deemed the same race!

I'd say it's used as both. I've had plenty of Spanish speaking immigrants in the USA refer to me as "gringo." They're the foreigners, and yet they refer to me as gringo.

The same goes for Hispanic. It's used to refer to cultural and racial differences.

Whether these differences are significant is another matter, but since both the left and right in the USA makes a big deal out this distinction isn't going away anytime soon.

Again, what differences are there racially between you and a White Hispanic? None.

And regarding the politicians' making a difference, they won't. Why? They're idiots.

 

[Samseau]

And a white Argentinian would call an American a gringo, even though the American is just as white as the Argentinian. What's your point?

Gringo just means foreigner, it isn't a racial categorization. It's completely different to the Hispanic thing where George Lopez and Ricky Martin are deemed the same race!

I'd say it's used as both. I've had plenty of Spanish speaking immigrants in the USA refer to me as "gringo." They're the foreigners, and yet they refer to me as gringo.

The same goes for Hispanic. It's used to refer to cultural and racial differences.

Whether these differences are significant is another matter, but since both the left and right in the USA makes a big deal out this distinction isn't going away anytime soon.

Again, what differences are there racially between you and a White Hispanic? None.

Uh... there are plenty of racial differences between various whites. Just go as the French what they think of the British. Or the Finish what they think of Russians.

Obviously a white Hispanic will have mixes from peoples indigenous to South America that a White European will never have.

 

[Teedub]

They're cultural differences, not racial, and if you can't see the difference you're really stupid. No, a white Italian Argentinian for example (See: Lionel Messi) won't have any indigenous influences.

You're clutching at straws mate.

 

[Teedub]

And a white Argentinian would call an American a gringo, even though the American is just as white as the Argentinian. What's your point?

Gringo just means foreigner, it doesn't have anything to do with race.

Teedub is spot on in this thread. There is so much ignorance on the subject of Hispanics/Latinos. Many white Americans are Nordicists. They only consider Caucasians of northern European ancestry to be "true" whites. The opposing view is Pan-Aryanism. Where whites are more broadly defined and white phenotype is recognized outside of N. Europe as well, to places like Argentina, Lebanon, Spain, Syria. To white Americans, if you don't look like you could've stepped off the Mayflower, then you're not white. Which is ridiculous. Steve Jobs was an Arab, and he was also white. All those people who roughly "look white" share some common ancestry that goes back to the Caucasus mountains. To me they are all white. Though obviously, culture and ethnicity still come into play. But racially, Steve Jobs is as white as Mitt Romney. If he looks like he could come from Europe, he's white. End of issue. Many Hispanics look like they could come from Europe, many have negligible black or indigenous ancestry, but because they have a bit of a tan and their last name is Valdez, white Americans have decided they are not white. Even though there are people in Italy and Spain who look exactly the same way. It's weird to me.

Thankyou!

 

[ElBorrachoInfamoso]

Just to clear this up.
Gringo essentially means Anglo, not foreigner. A Latin American wouldn't call a Chinese man or a Greek "gringo". That word is mainly used for people from the Anglosphere. Many Latin Americans would even call me gringo or practically gringo due to my American upbringing, despite the fact that my parents are both Hispanic.

It can be either neutral or pejorative depending on context, much like "Jew" is used in English e.g. today is a holiday for Jews vs. that cheap fucking Jew.

 

[Blaster]

They're cultural differences, not racial, and if you can't see the difference you're really stupid. No, a white Italian Argentinian for example (See: Lionel Messi) won't have any indigenous influences.

You're clutching at straws mate.

First-- superstars in entertainment are generally really bad examples of ethnicity because their image is crafted specifically for mass media. This applies to sports superstars as well, albeit usually to a lesser extent. If sports writers want to package "Messi" as Hispanic to appeal to a specific set of readership, that doesn't say anything about how people on the ground would actually relate to him if he wasn't famous.

The "Hispanic" umbrella is not precise. That is granted-- just like the "White" umbrella is also not precise despite speakeasy's protestations to the contrary (most people are NOT consciously "Nordicists" or "Pan-Aryanists"). The term has not evolved to be practical for use making fine distinctions between cultural and racial heritage. Given that, you will ALWAYS be able to find exceptions, when looked at from a certain perspective. Just because the boundaries are fuzzier than you're comfortable with doesn't make the whole concept crazy.

It's much like neighborhoods in a large city. If you're in the center of neighborhood A, you know you are in A and not B. You look around and see the famous landmarks and if you told someone to meet me in "A" they'd know what you meant. Likewise if you are in B you know you are not in A.

But on boundaries of these two neighborhoods it's different. You can look around and only see common residences. Unless you really know the area well, you won't be able to tell when A stops and B begins. Most people say they live in neighborhood "A" but some say they live in neighborhood "B". To someone just passing through, there would seem to be no rhyme or reason at all! But that passerby is also probably not going to care enough to make an issue of it. If someone claims to live in neighborhood "A" and it's more or less near "A" and not clearly in any other neighborhood then they aren't going to argue.

However, there may be people who do care and for whom it does matter, and they figure out the actual boundaries and document them for others. It may not become part of language, but you can look it up if you want. If you look up US demographics, you'll see the definition of Hispanic clearly accounts for white hispanics, black hispanics, and several other categories. The reason places like the UK do not use that meta-category is that they have no need for it. As large and diverse as the UK is, it's nowhere near as diverse as the US (especially if you focus mostly on Great Britain). Thus the top-level categories are far more inclusive, and this is reflected in common language and attitudes.

 

[Hencredible Casanova]

Is this guy unqualified to speak about the Black experience because he is White?

That's an interesting question..?

How would we define "qualified"? It's probably impossible.

I think there are situations when are qualified to speak on the experience and evolution of another race. And, of course, there are many more situations when we are not.

I know Josh through a friend who went to college with him. He would agree with everything I've said in the other thread and with what I'm about to say.

Josh can speak to the experience of being a white guy in a predominately black institution from personal experience, but he can't speak about being black from personal experience because, the fact is, Josh is not a black man. He can't identify as such on government forms, and neither would a police officer who pulled him over, neither would a witness who reported him in as a suspect, nor would a job interviewer. Race is a social identifier in this country, and it's a loaded one. How can there be such a thing as racism otherwise?

Now, Josh is, of course, entitled to have opinions about black people and how he views the history they have endured as a group in this country, but the extent to which his account is credible with a black audience, will depend on how closely it comports with their experiences.

That's precisely the reason why guys like Tim Wise have credibility with many blacks. It's because what he says aligns precisely with the experiences many of us have. You can tell just based on what he says that he's spent considerable time around blacks and studying their predicament as a racial group in this country.

You can also similarly tell when a white person is more concerned about what they see as an erosion of their own opportunities, status and privilege in this country than they are about the plight of black people. When a white person challenges the points made by guys like Tim Wise by spewing diatribes full of character attacks/ad hominems while absent of cogent facts, arguing against irrevocable truths, and does not admit to any ignorance whatsoever, I think it's clear which side of the fence they're on.

Either way, the trend of the crumbling white male power structure in this country is only going to accelerate in the coming years. You can either get on the bus, stay where you are, or get run over.

 

[Blaster]

http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/explorer?ref=us

Notice the patterns. See how, even at the broadest categories of "White", "Black", "Hispanic", "Asian" and "Other", you can look at that map and make predictions about the culture and people you will see, such as the difference between Union City and Hoboken in New Jersey.

If you care enough to dig deeper into racial details, you would find that 58% of Union City is "White Hispanic". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_City,_New_Jersey#Demographics

 

[Easy E]

Either way, the trend of the crumbling white male power structure in this country is only going to accelerate in the coming years. You can either get on the bus, stay where you are, or get run over.

The fact that the white power structure in this country is crumbling isn't necessarily a good thing for blacks. It will probably be a good thing for growing immigrant groups like Hispanics and Asians, but I am not sure it will be good for native-born blacks.

Case and point:

Hispanic win: ‘California can be Republican again'

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...can-again/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

The story I linked above is about a California republican state senator who just won in a historically Hispanic democrat district by appealing to Hispanic voters on jobs, affordable energy, and opposition to big government...and by also taking a softer stance on illegal immigration. Now this might be good for Hispanics since this means that more people will seek out their votes, but I fail to see how this is going to be good for blacks in the state. Most of the working class jobs that are created in Cali go to Hispanics, and legal and illegal immigration doesn't help the situation. Republicans also have plans to reach out to Asians and appeal to them as well.

Conversely, the Democrats are breaking their backs trying to pass immigration reform, which certainly doesn't help blacks but does benefit Hispanics and Asians. Democrats are even trying to make outreach efforts to Hispanics in Texas since winning that state means Republicans won't be able to win the presidency anymore. Of course, I don't see how reaching out to Hispanic voters exactly helps blacks, but maybe you can enlighten me.

I guess my point is that don't assume that the crumbling white power structure in this country will necessarily be a good thing for blacks, because I don't seen any evidence that it will.

 

[JayMillz]

 

[InternationPlayboy]

Why do you need to prove to anyone you're not racist? If you know you're not and they think you are, fuck 'em. You don't need to prove yourself to anyone.

 

[Blaster]

That's precisely the reason why guys like Tim Wise have credibility with many blacks. It's because what he says aligns precisely with the experiences many of us have. You can tell just based on what he says that he's spent considerable time around blacks and studying their predicament as a racial group in this country.

I've been reluctant to pay much attention to Tim Wise, and here is why:

What little I've been able to read doesn't hold up well under scrutiny. His experiences don't really match mine, seem to involve a lot of subjectivity and speculation, and lacks intellectual rigor.

Maybe it's more rigorous than it looks from the outside, and I'd be willing to investigate more except that he seems to be heavily marketing guilt and resentment. In general I've noticed that people who dwell on blame, especially racial blame, tend to be bad at identifying concrete problems and providing viable solutions. So I've not bothered with Tim Wise.

You can also similarly tell when a white person is more concerned about what they see as an erosion of their own opportunities, status and privilege in this country than they are about the plight of black people. When a white person challenges the points made by guys like Tim Wise by spewing diatribes full of character attacks/ad hominems while absent of cogent facts, arguing against irrevocable truths, and does not admit to any ignorance whatsoever, I think it's clear which side of the fence they're on.

There are sides because spreading around terms like "White Privilege" and spreading blame instead of making a serious effort to identify and appeal to shared principles, aggravates tribalist instincts instead of suppressing them. It's "divisive" to use the term from Obama campaigns.

 

[Hencredible Casanova]

Either way, the trend of the crumbling white male power structure in this country is only going to accelerate in the coming years. You can either get on the bus, stay where you are, or get run over.

The fact that the white power structure in this country is crumbling isn't necessarily a good thing for blacks. It will probably be a good thing for growing immigrant groups like Hispanics and Asians, but I am not sure it will be good for native-born blacks.

Case and point:

Hispanic win: ‘California can be Republican again'

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...can-again/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

The story I linked above is about a California republican state senator who just won in a historically Hispanic democrat district by appealing to Hispanic voters on jobs, affordable energy, and opposition to big government...and by also taking a softer stance on illegal immigration. Now this might be good for Hispanics since this means that more people will seek out their votes, but I fail to see how this is going to be good for blacks in the state. Most of the working class jobs that are created in Cali go to Hispanics, and legal and illegal immigration doesn't help the situation. Republicans also have plans to reach out to Asians and appeal to them as well.

Conversely, the Democrats are breaking their backs trying to pass immigration reform, which certainly doesn't help blacks but does benefit Hispanics and Asians. Democrats are even trying to make outreach efforts to Hispanics in Texas since winning that state means Republicans won't be able to win the presidency anymore. Of course, I don't see how reaching out to Hispanic voters exactly helps blacks, but maybe you can enlighten me.

I guess my point is that don't assume that the crumbling white power structure in this country will necessarily be a good thing for blacks, because I don't seen any evidence that it will.

Latinos and Asians are each a larger demographic than blacks in the state of California. Latinos are also now a larger minority group in the US than blacks and their political clout will only increase with time.

Barack Obama wouldn't be President today without the latino voting block, whereas he lost the white male vote. I think that runs counter to the point you're trying to make.

 

[Easy E]

Either way, the trend of the crumbling white male power structure in this country is only going to accelerate in the coming years. You can either get on the bus, stay where you are, or get run over.

The fact that the white power structure in this country is crumbling isn't necessarily a good thing for blacks. It will probably be a good thing for growing immigrant groups like Hispanics and Asians, but I am not sure it will be good for native-born blacks.

Case and point:

Hispanic win: ‘California can be Republican again'

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...can-again/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

The story I linked above is about a California republican state senator who just won in a historically Hispanic democrat district by appealing to Hispanic voters on jobs, affordable energy, and opposition to big government...and by also taking a softer stance on illegal immigration. Now this might be good for Hispanics since this means that more people will seek out their votes, but I fail to see how this is going to be good for blacks in the state. Most of the working class jobs that are created in Cali go to Hispanics, and legal and illegal immigration doesn't help the situation. Republicans also have plans to reach out to Asians and appeal to them as well.

Conversely, the Democrats are breaking their backs trying to pass immigration reform, which certainly doesn't help blacks but does benefit Hispanics and Asians. Democrats are even trying to make outreach efforts to Hispanics in Texas since winning that state means Republicans won't be able to win the presidency anymore. Of course, I don't see how reaching out to Hispanic voters exactly helps blacks, but maybe you can enlighten me.

I guess my point is that don't assume that the crumbling white power structure in this country will necessarily be a good thing for blacks, because I don't seen any evidence that it will.

Latinos and Asians are each a larger demographic than blacks in the state of California. Latinos are also now a larger minority group in the US than blacks and their political clout will only increase with time.

Barack Obama wouldn't be President today without the latino voting block, whereas he lost the white male vote. I think that runs counter to the point you're trying to make.

It doesn't run counter to my point which is that immigration doesn't benefit native-born blacks, and we are going to get more of it as Hispanic and Asian political power grows.

 

[Hencredible Casanova]

Either way, the trend of the crumbling white male power structure in this country is only going to accelerate in the coming years. You can either get on the bus, stay where you are, or get run over.

The fact that the white power structure in this country is crumbling isn't necessarily a good thing for blacks. It will probably be a good thing for growing immigrant groups like Hispanics and Asians, but I am not sure it will be good for native-born blacks.

Case and point:

Hispanic win: ‘California can be Republican again'

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...can-again/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

The story I linked above is about a California republican state senator who just won in a historically Hispanic democrat district by appealing to Hispanic voters on jobs, affordable energy, and opposition to big government...and by also taking a softer stance on illegal immigration. Now this might be good for Hispanics since this means that more people will seek out their votes, but I fail to see how this is going to be good for blacks in the state. Most of the working class jobs that are created in Cali go to Hispanics, and legal and illegal immigration doesn't help the situation. Republicans also have plans to reach out to Asians and appeal to them as well.

Conversely, the Democrats are breaking their backs trying to pass immigration reform, which certainly doesn't help blacks but does benefit Hispanics and Asians. Democrats are even trying to make outreach efforts to Hispanics in Texas since winning that state means Republicans won't be able to win the presidency anymore. Of course, I don't see how reaching out to Hispanic voters exactly helps blacks, but maybe you can enlighten me.

I guess my point is that don't assume that the crumbling white power structure in this country will necessarily be a good thing for blacks, because I don't seen any evidence that it will.

Latinos and Asians are each a larger demographic than blacks in the state of California. Latinos are also now a larger minority group in the US than blacks and their political clout will only increase with time.

Barack Obama wouldn't be President today without the latino voting block, whereas he lost the white male vote. I think that runs counter to the point you're trying to make.

It doesn't run counter to my point which is that immigration doesn't benefit native-born blacks, and we are going to get more of it as Hispanic and Asian political power grows.

Ah. Well, it's the white male power structure that invited immigration to begin with. Reagan opened the floodgates to non-European immigrants during the 1980s, so it's not like what benefits native-born blacks was ever on anyone's mind. I think that's a weak argument.

At any rate, everyone is going to have to compete even more to get ahead in this world. That's for sure.

 

[Mekorig]

A little background on the term Gringo.

Its funny, i am from Argentina, but i do not consider myself "Latino" or "Hispanic". Three of my grandparents come from East Europe (Ukraine) and one from Spain (Galicia), and even sometimes people confuse me for an european tourist, but, if i understand correctly, if i am living in the USA, the US Gov would consider me "Hispanic"?

 

[GameTheory]