CRT: Whiteness is Inherently Evil

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Ironically, some of those captured for slavery might even have had slaves themselves.

''SLAVERY IN WEST AND CENTRAL AFRICA

Slavery was prevalent in many West and Central African societies before and during the trans-Atlantic slave trade. When diverse African empires, small to medium-sized nations, or kinship groups came into conflict for various political and economic reasons, individuals from one African group regularly enslaved captives from another group because they viewed them as outsiders. The rulers of these slaveholding societies could then exert power over these captives as prisoners of war for labor needs, to expand their kinship group or nation, influence and disseminate spiritual beliefs, or potentially to trade for economic gain. Though shared African ethnic identities such as Yoruba or Mandinka may have been influential in this context, the concept of a unified black racial identity, or of individual freedoms and labor rights, were not yet meaningful.
West and Central African elites and royalty from slaveholding societies even relied on their kinship group, ranging from family members to slaves, to secure and maintain their wealth and status. By controlling the rights of their kinship group, western and central African elites owned the products of their labor. In contrast, before the trans-Atlantic trade, western European elites focused on owning land as private property to secure their wealth. These elites held rights to the products produced on their land through various labor systems, rather than owning the laborers as chattel property. In contrast, land in rural western and central African regions (outside of densely populated or riverine areas) was often open to cultivation, rather than divided into individual landholdings, so controlling labor was a greater priority. The end result in both regional systems was that elites controlled the profits generated from products cultivated through laborers and land. The different emphasis on what or whom they owned to guarantee rights over these profits shaped the role of slavery in these regions before the trans-Atlantic trade...''

Of course, the implication from racist wokies is that these people were 'inferior' therefore we can't judge them because they didn't know any better....

[henry quirk]

Of course, the implication from racist wokies is that these people were 'inferior' therefore we can't judge them because they didn't know any better....

you mean the wokies excuse the black slaver, and his descendants, even as they condemn the white slaver, and his descendants?

well, that certainly doesn't seem equitable, does it?

-----

'in-group - out-group'

so, blacks have kinship with the chinese? that wouid explain why they excuse the chinese slaver and slaver-state (or, mebbe, the chinese slaver just knows how to grease the right palms)

[Immanuel Can]

Nick, prome, IC:

Sometimes an argument ad absurdium is just that—absurd. Hope you are having a laugh.

The absurdity is all on the CRT side. There seems no limit to how silly their "racism-hunting" can become. Once you've got a group of people who tell you that mathematics, science and reason itself are "racist," but putting quotas to keep Asians out of Harvard or saying that saying "Whiteness is evil" is not, you are certainly dealing with people who are absurdly mendacious -- or just plain not very bright.

Why wouldn't the same folks be stupid enough to invent a "racist" narrative about chess? I certainly think they're capable of that. They've done it for so many other things...why not that?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Nick, prome, IC:

Sometimes an argument ad absurdium is just that—absurd. Hope you are having a laugh.

The absurdity is all on the CRT side. There seems no limit to how silly their "racism-hunting" can become. Once you've got a group of people who tell you that mathematics, science and reason itself are "racist," but putting quotas to keep Asians out of Harvard or saying that saying "Whiteness is evil" is not, you are certainly dealing with people who are absurdly mendacious -- or just plain not very bright.

Why wouldn't the same folks be stupid enough to invent a "racist" narrative about chess? I certainly think they're capable of that. They've done it for so many other things...why not that?

Of course chess is racist. White always gets to go first. It must be cancelled forthwith!

Not to mention the fact that nearly all the grandmasters seem to be male, and those pesky WHITE males to boot. AAAGH! We need a quota system to get more diversity into grandmasterdom.

[Immanuel Can]

...nearly all the grandmasters seem to be male, and those pesky WHITE males to boot. AAAGH! We need a quota system to get more diversity into grandmasterdom.

Actually, I checked, and that appears to be true...they are all males of "white" pigmentation, except for the Indians like V. Anand, and the other Asians like the Chinese, who are very successful, but whom the CRTers count as if "white" -- but only because, for CRT, any success proves you are automatically an oppressor.

Their reasoning goes this way: if oppressing others and stealing what is rightfully theirs is the only way to get ahead (and CRTers, of course, believe that is so), then the mere fact of achievement or success must be assumed to be evidence of treachery of some kind. Just to be a "winner" signals you've cheated, stolen, abused some power, gamed the system, and deprived some other people of goods they might have otherwise had.

In fact, CRTers are addicted to mediocrity, failure and evil, because only those things offer them an opportunity for advocacy and virtue signalling. They can advocate for "losers," but cannot be useful to any "winners," so they invariably side with that which is failed and bad. They can do nothing else. Nobody who is successful needs them for anything.

And that's not an argument that originates with me: others have observed it, too, and most notably, Evan Sayet, in The Kindergarten of Eden, his take on Social Justice nonsense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGBkJT2L55k He reasons it out: according to Leftist logic, the only "moral" side is always the failed, bad, alienated, unsuccessful, dependent, angry side.

[promethean75]

No for god sakes don't do that! If we run some controlled experiments and end up finding out that neegrows aren't as good at chess as whitey is, it'll be like the sixties all over again. What we need is a system in which 'each according to his own' is fostered in a competitive economy democratically run by a single working class. That way, dummies of all colors can find their niche without being exploited by some other asshole while also not becoming somebody else's problem (lumpenproletariat).

On some real shit tho, I knew a dude... called em 'grandmaster black'... in jail. Dats all this dude did was play chess. It got so bad that er'body refused to play em. He'd even triple his side of the bet (three Ramon noodles if I win, pay one Ramon noodles if I don't), and we wuz still like 'nah bruh you ain't fixin to get me again like dat'

[Immanuel Can]

No for god sakes don't do that! If we run some controlled experiments and end up finding out that neegrows aren't as good at chess as whitey is, it'll be like the sixties all over again.

Nobody said that, except you.

But the fact requires some sort of explanation: why are women not achieving to the level of men in chess? We could argue that historically, maybe women weren't allowed to play it -- but that clearly hasn't been true for at least half a century now. There should have been plenty of time, in our pro-Feminist age, for women to rise to the very top levels, where they would (no doubt) be celebrated lavishly.

Have you seen the Netflix movie "The Queen's Gambit"? It's total fiction, of course; but it shows how passionately the masses are being encouraged to long for a grand champion who's a woman.

What we need is a system in which 'each according to his own' is fostered in a competitive economy democratically run by a single working class.

There is no "single working class."

Have you read Marx? He thinks the Industrial Proletariat, the workers in the factories, are it. In the modern West, few people work in factories anymore, and most people are, compared to Marx's Industrial Proletariat or to the rest of the world, fabulously wealthy, largely as a result of Capitalism.

Marx was just wrong on every point, really.

That way, dummies of all colors can find their niche without being exploited by some other asshole while also not becoming somebody else's problem (lumpenproletariat).

Ah, this we do get from Marx...contempt for the "Lumpenproletariat."

He thinks that rabid ideologues from the Bourgeoisie, like him, must lead the poor, blind little proletarian fools to realize their true benefit. He doesn't think they're smart enough to get there themselves. They need incitement from above...hence, things like CRT.

Ironically, this makes CRT an elitist taste, not a proletarian one.

[promethean75]

That thing about women and chess is prolly something to do with spatial reasoning skills or sumthin. Maybe dudes' brains have evolved to be better at it. Seems I read sumthin like this some'ers.

But we can't talk about Marx anymore, mang. I've met numbers of folks on forum boards that pass all the standard errors and misunderstandings of what Marxism means/is, with flying colors. But you even got some new shit going on that I've never seen before. At this point all I can manage is a face palm.

[Immanuel Can]

That thing about women and chess is prolly something to do with spatial reasoning skills or sumthin. Maybe dudes' brains have evolved to be better at it. Seems I read sumthin like this some'ers.

Yes, I've seen that argument. But if you buy it, then you're also implying that men and women are not equivalent...that women might plausibly, as a group (not individually, necessarily, of course) do some things better than men, and men might (again, as a group) be better at some other things.

But in that case, to strive for perfect "equality" in all areas is to strive to force reality to become what it is not and cannot ever be. In that moment, you have become an essentialist in the question of sex roles.

But we can't talk about Marx anymore, mang.

That's exactly what we have to do. And fortunately for you, I've just reread The Communist Manifesto, and am a long way into Das Kapital. So we've got lots to talk about.

The only reason you can admire Marx is if you don't know what he actually said. I'm certain of that. So why not take your palm off your face, and make a claim about what Marx actually wrote? I'm quite up for that.

[henry quirk]

what Marxism means

obviously, I'm one of those misinformed types who has marx all wrong

so, here's your chance: educate me

in simple language: tell me what marxism is

[promethean75]

Not gonna happen chief. I spent the first week here following whoever around correcting them about Marx... then three weeks later the same people are saying the same nonsense. I could bang my head into a wall and make more progress. Besides, I'd rather jump on a wheel that's already rolling, with like minded folks, then reinvent the fucking thing every time I come across a new batch of people.

You guys must still be in that phase where you enjoy debate and discussion. For me, that shit's like a chore. I'm only here because the other spot I hung out at has become infested with crazy people at worst and lame, uninteresting people at best.

[promethean75]

Okay fuck it. I'll say it goddamit. 'philosophy' forums are by and large, a joke to me. Hence the village idiot persona. I am wherever I am at a forum because Revleft is dead and has been for some time. But because I'm a slowly recovering forum addict, I keep coming back to random philosophy forums when I find em. My participation is sporadic, unplanned, and to be nothing resembling 'serious study' or a classroom environment. Nothing can ever change my mind about my belief that people who are not Marxists, anarchists or nihilists, are irredeemable flakes. Not intentionally, mind you... they just can't help it (the most). The elevator don't go to the top... or, they're scum (the few). In any event, my battle is with my forum addiction, not you people.

[henry quirk]

reinvent the fucking thing

if there was anything to it, you wouldn't have to: you could just lay it out simple and direct

Revleft

if this place is a joke, that place was the punchline: stupid rules, stupid people, marxism at it's best

[promethean75]

The abolition of the private ownership of all means of production and public utilities.

Now, do you not understand what this means.... or is your problem that you don't understand how this might be done?

[promethean75]

Wait lemme add something, which I don't believe conventional Marxism addresses. This is an adjustment I made, so we're talking about Prorxism now. Only private business that employs wage earners, is abolished. Self employed individuals who produce and sell their own product or service, are permitted in the market. So for example, I would either work for/with a corporation vertically controlled and operated by the workers who are in charge of it, and make a wage doing home renovation, repair and new construction.... or deal directly with the consumer who employs me to provide that service, on my own. But I don't have any employees, so I don't exploit anyone. I pay taxes like er'body else, and if I find that I am not satisfied with my income, I return to the democratic work force.