Can blacks be racist?

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Some persons of my party said to me that blacks cannot be anti-racist because the systematic repression of other colours is always of white origin, and he got a lot of likes for it. I have said and stated numerous times that this is not true. I've said we're both anti-racists but I do not think his reasoning is correct or that his approach will work and will only feed racism (reactive racism in this case). I've mentioned the example of South Africa (of course as a reaction to white supremacy before the 1990's). Of course, in practice white racism and white supremacism will be far more prevalent. But I do not think they are correct, and because of it, i will likely leave the youth organisation of PVDA permanently because I think they're too radical on that, and refuse to acknowledge that anti-racism can have racist roots too, by saying that all whites or all flemish people are racist, which I can not tolerate.

Debate?

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I am hoping the main organization isn’t as naïve and uninformed about this issue.

One of the issues I’ve noticed about wide swathes of the European left is not being used to and having “incorrect” assumptions about immigrant and marginalized ethnic communities like Irish Travellers, Sinti, and Roma. I’m not surprised given the lack of (visible) diversity in Europe, but stuff like making Grey Wolves terrorists major party members in the Danish Green Party I believe is quite dumb. On the flipside, falling into the trap of smearing against the oppressed by falling through a different set of ignorance is also idiotic (I’m looking at you Swedish KP and Hungarian Workers Party).

A major thing the Youth group, and wider European Left, needs to do is actually focus on recruiting the immigrant community and diaspora in the ghettos to properly deal with this issue. Laki, correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m assuming that the Youth movement you are apart of is 90+% white in both membership and leadership. To properly represent all of the Belgian working class, the PTB-PVDA must resemble Belgium. The benefits is that you reach out to all of the working class, can be more educated on the varying issues affecting the future of the diverse community of working people for the purposes of solidarity, and these new members can rightfully provide critique on issues in their community.

Laki, my best answer if my assumption is correct is to send a complaint through the proper channels that more work needs to be done in recruitment among all of the Belgian working class. If not, I would suggest the party to reach out to like-minded organizations representing the working class in North Africa, the Levant, Central Asia, etc. to educate the party on these issues and be more aware of issues that need to be solved in these growing communities. I’m assuming y’all got good contacts internationally considering that the Belgian Commies organized to what amounts to a party every year or so till 2014.

Exactly what do you mean about anti-white racism in South Africa? The rampant xenophobia and foolishness of the black identitarian parties like BLF and Malema’s personality outfit or issues regarding labor disputes on South African farms? South Africa is weird in it having a very loose structure regarding its centralization that oftentimes leads to a lack of action by the government, leading people to think that vigilante action is the only way to solve things like labor disputes, and pits the various people in the rainbow nation against one another for economic development and patronage—which is why there are two different Zulu parties for the local aristocracy and the Afrikaner party.

I think we are one of the most ethnically diverse Belgian parties, especially from muslim communities (except for jews, a very right-wing demographic here).

[LAKISYLVANIA]

The context of this discussion translated with Google translate, so for who-ever wants to know why I brought this up, and why I was angry at the time.




My post on my wall:


Another such thing is the IQ test. Is there anything more discriminating than using an IQ test? An IQ test tries to measure someone's intelligence. It tries to distinguish between intelligent and non-intelligent people, but it fails to measure a person's intellectual potential. It is a very subjective test that measures certain factors of intelligence. And the creators of the IQ tests are of course also 'biased' or not the intellectual perfection. Even if tests are supposed to give an indication of a certain concept, they still fail. An IQ test can be faked, or is something that can be 'trained' on. It is subject to social conditions, culture and even day-to-day fitness. For example, someone who has slept poorly is likely to have a worse outcome. Background noise can be perceived as disturbing. Someone with concentration problems is no more stupid than someone who can concentrate well, but will generally get a lower score.

African-Americans and people with a black skin color are said to have an IQ that is on average 20 points lower than for white / Asian people. Of course that does not mean that those people are therefore less smart. But what it does want to imply is that these people often grow up in disadvantaged regions, have less access to good education (due to discrimination, distance, country of origin), and probably also that as a result less focus is placed in that culture / context. on good education, upbringing and performance. Something that is much more important in Western countries than in "third world countries". Those countries are often still in full development, and it is of course another debate about how to get those countries out of that vicious circle. On the other hand, we can also learn a lot from them about, for example, attitude to life. We have to help each other. It is of course a fact that racist organizations use to 'prove' that black people are effectively an inferior race than whites, but that is absolutely not true and a myth. Just as it is a myth that black people are physically stronger than white people. Life does not discriminate in race. There is nothing that is determined by your skin color, only your skin color itself (and of course also psycho-social circumstances in which you grow up because it is still something that is discriminated against, and racism is something that comes from all sides. whites stronger because we are in the majority, but in South Africa, for example, it is the other way around. It is something that comes from all sides, and from which no one is immune).

If I ever practice the profession of a psychologist, and that chance is there, I will always refuse to take an IQ test. And this on principle. I will always argue why I do this. People can always go to another psychologist who is willing to take this off. That is their choice and every right. But that I would refuse to take it is also my right. I absolutely do not see the point of such a test, and I usually have a good idea of ​​what someone's capabilities and strengths are.

Someone else from my group:
What do you mean with this (shows picture of me saying this: racism is something that comes from all sides. whites stronger because we are in the majority, but in South Africa, for example, it is the other way around. It is something that comes from all sides, and from which no one is immune)

My answer:.
 
No one is immune from being a victim of racism, regardless of skin color. Yes, in practice it is more common in non-white people, especially here in the Western world. But in South Africa, for example, racism comes from both sides, and blacks are also discriminating against whites today. Black supremacy is one of the platforms of the extreme left party Economic Freedom Fighters. And also the largest party ANC (African National Congress) has in its platform, the expropriation of "Africans". It is not that the white man is by definition racist, and that minorities cannot be. To fight racism, you have to tackle both. Without it, you will only polarize, and racism will even increase as one demographic feels disadvantaged over the other. Although it is a very complex debate, of course.

Person 2 and fellow member of my commie group:

The IQ test is a bad meter of "intelligence" because of the bias and a wrong starting point. So I don't understand why you would look at social environment as an explanation for low IQ in black people. Again, the reason is the inadequacy of the IQ test as a yardstick and the fact that it is completely biased.

Racism is also a structural problem. Racist ideology arose from the need for an argument to justify the western colonization of Africa, Asia and America.

Colonialists were a minority in Africa, so your argument that racism and power relations depend on demographic numbers has already been debunked. But I don't understand how someone who is a so-called socialist would think that at all. The working class is also many times larger than the capitalist class. And yet it is the last to exploit the other.

The same for racism. Racism is about systematic exploitation and oppression of entire populations. It cannot come from both sides as there is always an oppressor and an exploited one. There has not been a single moment in modern history where colonized and ethnically marginalized groups had the structural power to dominate white colonial populations.

My answer:


The social environment is partly the explanation for the low IQ in black people. And there is little black people can do about that. This is the result of discrimination against white people against blacks in Western countries, which means that black people do not have every opportunity, comparable to people from a lower class who are less likely to graduate than people from a higher class, and the vicious circle in which those people to sit. And also the consequence of third world countries (especially Africa) where development is still in full swing, due to their systematic oppression in the colonization past.

I have never said that racism is not a structural problem. I think racism may depend on demographic numbers, but as you correctly say, it shouldn't always be. A country with a larger number of soldiers will not always win in a war against a country with a smaller number of soldiers, for example. There are more factors.

But where you do make the mistake of saying that racism cannot come from both sides. You rather rely on groups that systematically suppress each other (and generalize in this), but I am talking about the individual here. An individual can always be racist, regardless of skin color, sometimes even fueled by the racism of the other population group. For example, a black person who has been oppressed by whites all his life may become racist towards whites (and for a reason). Sometimes this also happens for unfounded reasons. Indeed, in the past, it was always the whites who oppressed other populations, often because they felt they were more civilized than those groups. This is how colonialism arose, from imperialism and from this sentiment. The Aztecs had a kind of religion where they sacrificed human hearts to their Gods, and the Spaniards saw this as barbaric, for example. Another reason was that they wanted to spread their religion, Christianity, and see other religions as barbaric or pagan. What the Spanish did next is not correct at all and the Aztec / Pre-Columbian civilizations were on the right side of history in my opinion.

But from their point of view, I can understand why they were seen as inferior or barbaric. But because there was never any interaction between pre-Columbian civilizations and the rest of the world for about 5,000 years at the very least, these arose and evolved quite apart from each other.
Colonialism is no longer relevant for today. There are very few people alive today who are responsible for that. In my example South Africa, it is really the blacks who are exploiting the whites right now, and in that country they do have the structural power to do so. And there are still examples (of all population groups).

I think in order to end racism (and I think we should aim to make racism less frequent for the time being because it will be more realistic), you should include everyone in your story. If you will always point the finger at whites, and then say: "the white man or the Flemish is racist", you will not get that in your story. And I also find such a comment discriminatory. I think you need to be more nuanced and let go of the past. You have to look at contemporary problems and tackle them. But what you do is polarize, and with that you only contribute to racism. Because you still see it too much as white against other colors. And if the PVDA comes up with such a position, they will be a marginalized party because they antagonize all white people and they will not reach the electoral threshold.

I certainly support the fight against racism, but I do not think this is correct.

Another response

We are both anti-racist for sure. But I think our approach is very different. I don't believe in your approach. Because I think that 1) is not correct and 2) because it will not lead to results. For example, the denazification of Germany is a very good example of how to approach it. Germany is one of the most stable countries in the world today, and due to the change in generations and current image, no one can blame their Nazi past. Many people from those generations also did not support the Nazis (will be about 50/50) and were pressured. Others who supported this came to an understanding later (often after the war). But your approach feeds racism. A reaction will always lead to a counter reaction. The life of a white person is not worth much according to your approach, because the white man will always be racist, and is always responsible for what happened, and is still happening. Sometimes it may seem that it is, but in practice it is not all as black and white as it seems. I know a lot of Vlaams Belangers, and in practice I don't think they are racist. They often vote for them for other reasons (often a combination), which can be very different. And part is also anti-Islam, with dislike for that religion, their oppression for human rights and women's rights (sharia law) and also because they are "low information voters", who come into contact with them more and with terrorism / growing crime. no longer tolerate. I don't think these are "racist reasons", even though I don't think the reasoning of those people is correct because they also generalize. By the way, I even know people of a different color who vote for Vlaams Belang, and they have their reasons too. In America, Trump has, despite losing, made gains with people of other colors. It is the losses of white people (mainly suburbs) that ultimately led to a victory for Biden. But yes, from the ground up, Vlaams Belang is racist and many of their voters are too. But not all. And I have also heard stories from people at Open VLD, for example, who were clearly very / extremely racist. It is something that you will inevitably find in every game. Mostly at Vlaams Belang, of course, because they support that themselves.

His response

Gosh I find it really shocking that after your half-baked and reactionary points you still dare to make assumptions about how * I * see and want to tackle anti-racism. While da was not even discussed.
I would very much like to end this discussion with perhaps a sneer. But I know some comrades aren't going to thank me for making racism worse, and always have to be the bigger person and white people like you hold hands and walk them to Anti-Racism.
Ma bon we are both comac'ers and I assume are still in the PVDA so I will do it anyway.
I'm going to ignore your talk of the IQ and the Aztecs and Denazification because 1) I don't really care 2) there are probably other people who are more equipped to either debunk those points or possibly "nuance" those points.
Soit. About the point that colonialism is irrelevant now. Colonialism is literally the foundation on which contemporary capitalism is built. The "emancipation" of the former colonies does not mean that this is now negligible, as they still maintain neo-colonial ties with the west. The world is FAR from decolonized, and I encourage you to read the works of Frantz Fanon and Walter Rodney.
2) White people can certainly have a place in the anti-racist struggle. But this must be one where the historical guilt is recognized, but also a true contemporary racism at all levels and their contribution to it is addressed. Not just recognized, but effectively done with it.
3) Racism is not no discrimination. Saying "dirty white" to someone will not have the same effect as a white person would do the same to persons of color. The white person may have been hurt, but still lives in a world where they have more opportunities for a job / housing / decent education. A world where they should not fear random police violence against them or people who look like them.

My answer yet again:

See, this reaction is proof to me that you don't see me as an 'equal', but as more towards me. Which is very striking for a 'communist'. Soit.
My vision is very clear. I APPROACH people without prejudice to skin color. I don't give a sh**t about skin color, really. I refuse to engage in identity politics, not of white supremacy and not those of the other side. It's not us vs them. It's all about us. I have known a traumatic past, and others always say to me: let it go. You yourself are not directly affected / affected by colonialism. And I am not responsible for it, nor will I apologize for it, because I have never done anything wrong in that area. Moreover, it is Leopold II (in this case) who is most to blame for this, and he is long dead. His relatives can apologize, but have not done it themselves (that genocide).
Constantly pushing yourself into a victim role doesn't arouse sympathy. And yes, you might have some likes, and that's because those people know YOU better than I do. Their right, but if PVDA uses your strategy, we will NOT reach the electoral threshold. Because the people I have convinced to choose PVDA drop out exactly on that point.

This is exactly what bothers me in the modern left, and why we are losing like never before.