tin_robot wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

I think religion plays a part in it, to be honest. If we believe ourselves to be following the one true religion, then of course we’re superior to these people who haven’t even heard of Jesus. That plus more advanced technology, and of course good old greed and away you go.

Weirdly I think there's a good argument to say that it was the "Enlightenment", rather than religion, that firmly established racism as we see it today.  The idea that white superiority somehow reflected a "rational" view of the world was incredibly powerful, and made it much easier for whites to regard everyone else as objects rather than fellow humans.  European Enlightenment ideals then became pretty much the foundations of America, with racism being baked into their culture from the start - and again that "rational" idea of superiority made it much easier to, erm, rationalise the idea of owning people from other races, taking their lands or eradicating them entirely.

Obviously slavery has been a concept throughout human history, but the Enlightenment provided a context which not merely allowed it to be acceptable to those perpetrating it, but created a theoretical and linguistic norm that permitted the racism to persist as part of a cultural identity even as slavery ended, religion faded and colonialism retreated. (I'd argue you can see the same currents playing out even now amongst some of the more infamous proponents of "rationalism", who seem to occasionally let that drift into more overt racism.)

One could also argue it's the Enlightenment that was developed/adapted to be used as justification (next to religion ofc as one cannot rule without God) for colonialism and the slave trade. Keep in mind, the East/West Indian Companies were already running in full effect and pre-date the Enlightenment for how many years? 150-100 or so?

Meritocracy doesn’t mean that nobody has advantages or disadvantages, it means that your ultimate success or otherwise is based on your performance in your role.

cockbeard wrote:

Not seen the film but very much aware of Cass Pennant Not sure what the point is going to be though, it actually leads into the tribalism described earlier. Plus football based violence (not those twats at the England games, actual violence) is highly organised and away from the matches themselves. The allegiance to the club and the firm is greater than the hatred towards a certain race When choosing words for opposing fans or players though, people are choosing words not based on their own hatred of anyone, but on that words ability to cause the most damage. Amongst the actual card carrying racists you'll see behaviours that look a lot like "my nigger's cool, your one's a nigger"

The reason for raising Cass, is to highlight the nature vs nurture argument, in the context of what racism is. 

If people are still trying to draw a one liner out of me then, for me, racism is the belief that general assumptions about someones behaviour can be made on the basis of shared physical traits, or the cultural practices of people with shared physical traits. 

That's not logically airtight. If Bertrand Russell came back from the dead, he'd happy fuck the gaps in that, but it's not an awful start for a sub 50 word summary. You can see though, how off the back of that short definition, you can imagine a million problems. Many of those problems, of course, already exist.

The Cass story interests me, because his story subverts the above. I wonder how a black man ends up at the head of a 'firm' that generally represents the paragon of petty racist behaviour? 

Just about anything we commonly value/fear in life isn't associated with a colour, race or anything of the like. 

Cass' early life was classically turbulent. His peers wouldn't allow him any to do anything because, well, racism. When his peers realised he shared their culture of violence though, and saw his mastery of it, he wasn't a - insert epithet here - Even violent muppets realise this. 

That's what I wanted to discuss in raising the story of Cass.

Also, I think you could have made the same point at the end of your post, without using the word 'nigger'. Wouldn't you agree?

Yossarian wrote:

hunk wrote:

Everyone can perform...... If only the right doors would open to you and allow you to audition for the part. The point is the right doors often stay closed to the majority of us plebs due to them being regulated by stuff like 'social class' and 'ancestry'. Hence nullifying the merit in meritocracy.

The doors to sport are pretty open, though? Schools do sport, if you’re good at sport you’re given the chance to perform for your school, if you’re really good, you get the chance to play for your county or whatever. Youth coaches pay attention to the people doing these things and see who might have potential to go further. Most of the England football team are working class.

I see your point but sadly it doen't invalidate Facewon's observation.

Yossarian wrote:

hunk wrote:

Everyone can perform...... If only the right doors would open to you and allow you to audition for the part. The point is the right doors often stay closed to the majority of us plebs due to them being regulated by stuff like 'social class' and 'ancestry'. Hence nullifying the merit in meritocracy.

The doors to sport are pretty open, though? Schools do sport, if you’re good at sport you’re given the chance to perform for your school, if you’re really good, you get the chance to play for your county or whatever. Youth coaches pay attention to the people doing these things and see who might have potential to go further. Most of the England football team are working class.

Cant speak for the UK but if we take Irelands Rugby set up, yes players come through schools but some schools are way more into their Rugby set up than others. I think in general you're right that the doors to sport are more open than other careers, but as pro sports are so lucrative, I think it will get harder for pure talent to get you through. I knew of 2 kids growing up whose parents had invested huge money in their sports career (one golf, one tennis) and I think we will see more of this. You might have great skills but the Kid from a wealthy background maybe has the same skills but also has access to better nutrition, access to better equipment and coaches etc.

hunk wrote:

I see your point but sadly it doen't invalidate Facewon's observation.

Face’s observation was to do with the definition of meritocracy, which I don’t think is correct.

RedDave2 wrote:

Cant speak for the UK but if we take Irelands Rugby set up, yes players come through schools but some schools are way more into their Rugby set up than others. I think in general you're right that the doors to sport are more open than other careers, but as pro sports are so lucrative, I think it will get harder for pure talent to get you through. I knew of 2 kids growing up whose parents had invested huge money in their sports career (one golf, one tennis) and I think we will see more of this. You might have great skills but the Kid from a wealthy background maybe has the same skills but also has access to better nutrition, access to better equipment and coaches etc.

This is all true, but it doesn’t change the fact that someone could have done all of those things for me, for instance, and I’d never have become a professional sportsperson, or that someone without all of those advantages can easily leapfrog those with them based on ability alone. That’s the definition of a meritocracy.

Lord_Griff wrote:

I would've loved to play basketball beyond school but I was told I couldn't jump.

Or dribble, or pass, or shoot, or set a pick, rebound, play on ball defence... :}

dynamiteReady wrote:

The Cass story interests me, because his story subverts the above. I wonder how a black man ends up at the head of a 'firm' that generally represents the paragon of petty racist behaviour?

Not a question I ever asked him, but in my experience actual racists are way rarer than people who engage in racist behaviour. I'd imagine that at the time he simply turned the other cheek to it most of the time. I certainly have done in the past, because the need to stay inside the circle outweighed calling folk out. This then progressed to calling someone out, which would be often be met with a straight faced and sincere "but not you, you're alright", as if that's a compliment. People are stupid, but the average response to being called out nowadays is more of a mumbled apology, embarrassment, and feeling chastened. So attitudes have changed

dynamiteReady wrote:

Also, I think you could have made the same point at the end of your post, without using the word 'nigger'. Wouldn't you agree?

I genuinely don't think so, I used that word for that very reason, it really does ram home the point, the visceral nature of those attitudes

cockbeard wrote:

Also, I think you could have made the same point at the end of your post, without using the word 'nigger'. Wouldn't you agree?

I genuinely don't think so, I used that word for that very reason, it really does ram home the point, the visceral nature of those attitudes

I get what you're saying, but was also thinking, in discussion about sexism, for example, I'm going to try hard to stay away from a number of words, unless I really need to use them.

That said, Theresa May is a cunt. 

But even in the most un-polite society, while I undoubtedly want bad things to happen to Theresa May, there are certain things that I would not desire to happen to her. And I'm certainly not going to encourage a discussion of those kind of things, by naming them, even in the context of my desire for the woman suffer.

That might just be me though.

I'm a sap like that.

Not a question I ever asked him, but in my experience actual racists are way rarer than people who engage in racist behaviour.

You know Cass? That's some shit...

That apart, in the same sentence, this idea about 'actual racists' is an interesting one.

What is an 'actual' racist?

Or do you mean someone who dedicates an extraordinary amount of time, effort and resources to holding up the basic idea, or key aspects of it (like Enoch Powell, Tommy Robinson, the Le Pen's. That class of people)?

Lol! Muzzy's 'continuum' again. :]

Which I thought was interesting, but I know some people don't like it:
http://thebearandbadger.co.uk/discussion/comment/1981001#Comment_1981001

I can see why they might not though.

I know it's already been posted, but:

Yeah I was expecting horse races.

Inside the mind of a reader of the Mail. I found this quite funny at first (please tell me more about the substance of those posts you never saw) but actually it’s quite depressing

In which case surely any comment regarding race on that story should be removed, because her race is completely irrelevant to the story. I would love to see what the "even handed" comments he's talking about were. I'd bet pounds to pennies that he's using "even" in the same way as telly programs allow flat earthers to talk shit because "balance"

Balanced to a Mail commenter is probably something about black people being "grateful" they can be MPs in our society.