And People Thought Blatant Racism Didn't Exist Anymore

TrymVonTryll

Rookie
Joined
Jan 11, 2018
Messages
34
I am rather surprised...I would think the racist nature of this ad is obvious; even white people should be able to see it. I do, and I am half white( & half Japanese).

Also, yes, non-white people & especially blacks have historically been ostracized and dehumanized by the majority of whites
By the majority of whites? That seems like a gross generalization.
Have you ever read about the north african and ottoman slave trade? Search that stuff up.
Thing is, people are being oppressed and made slaves mainly because they are vulnerable. There were apparantly irish slaves as well in America, although certain leftist newspapers are "de-bunking" it.

The trans Atlantic slave trade was massive and expansive, no doubt about it. However, the fact remains that other africans enslaved a vast portion of the slaves and the Europeans bought them.
One can see how people are capable of betraying their own in any war or conflict for riches and other comforts when the invaders have superior technology and firepower
And the vast majority of americans did not own slaves, the rich elite owned slaves, not the average Joe.

By all means, I am not trying to justify these actions, but can't we agree that humans in general have extraordinary potential to be cruel, no matter the race?
By using the term "white people" it seems to forget that within that term there are many social classes and peoples, to say that all whites have a certain outlook is quite problematic, don't you think?
 






X-Maverick

Established
Joined
Jul 13, 2017
Messages
200
o_O



How and where did you arrive at this assessment, Rainerann? Are you Black/African-American? Have you spoken to any Blacks about the derogatory monkey reference? You state this is all being blown out of proportion, and you apply your personal examples and consider them to be the truth, which I find confounding. American history illustrates otherwise: The Coon Caricature: Blacks as Monkeys.
My God, this is so stupid. I am a mixed guy myself, I am partly black (not that it should fucking matter). And guess what? It doesn't offend me. My mother is black, and it wouldn't offend her. And the mother of the kid in the ad has said the outrage is fucking ridiculous, which it is!

Do we have to make an issue out of everything? Is racism around every damned corner? No. To attempt to find racism is a major problem. You don't need to look for racism with a magnifying glass, as it normally stares you in the face.

Again, this whole fiasco is absolutely fucking ridiculous and all of your opinions saying this is racist are invalid.
 






X-Maverick

Established
Joined
Jul 13, 2017
Messages
200
What has his cleanliness got to do with his modelling?

Honestly, some of the adjectives used by you guys is just patronising beyond belief.

She applauds the child because he looks clean? Wtf
Did you just attempt to find offense where there is none? You people are absolutely ridiculous. My God, conspiracy circles get worse and worse as time progresses. I really hope the majority don't think like you guys do. But then, who am I kidding? If there's one thing I learned, it's that there is no shortage of stupidity.
 






X-Maverick

Established
Joined
Jul 13, 2017
Messages
200
But as soon as you know that someone finds it offensive you should stop using it, even if it seems illogical to you.
While I agree with the rest of your post, people should be allowed to say whatever they want. I guess it's a free country that supports free speech....until someone is offended.
 






elsbet

Star
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
4,520
Maybe. All the same, I'm not insensitive to how others may perceive the photo. We all come from different experiences as is evident in this thread. It's the hypocrisy and double standard from the celebs that I was pointing out.
I don't disagree but I was referring to your comment on naivete.
 






Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
2,510
By the majority of whites? That seems like a gross generalization.
Have you ever read about the north african and ottoman slave trade? Search that stuff up.
Thing is, people are being oppressed and made slaves mainly because they are vulnerable. There were apparantly irish slaves as well in America, although certain leftist newspapers are "de-bunking" it.

The trans Atlantic slave trade was massive and expansive, no doubt about it. However, the fact remains that other africans enslaved a vast portion of the slaves and the Europeans bought them.
One can see how people are capable of betraying their own in any war or conflict for riches and other comforts when the invaders have superior technology and firepower
And the vast majority of americans did not own slaves, the rich elite owned slaves, not the average Joe.

By all means, I am not trying to justify these actions, but can't we agree that humans in general have extraordinary potential to be cruel, no matter the race?
By using the term "white people" it seems to forget that within that term there are many social classes and peoples, to say that all whites have a certain outlook is quite problematic, don't you think?
If everyone feels so strongly about slavery, you'd expect European "whites" to be given props for having ended it worldwide. How about a thank you to the British? Like "Hey Limeys, that thing your ancestors did in the 19th century was pretty cool." Some appreciation instead of accusing generations of European descent for things they didn't participate in and demanding reparations. The Africans didn't abolish slavery, the Arabs didn't, the Indians didn't, Europeans did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Trade_Act_1807

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Africa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa_Squadron


In the mean time, Antoine Griezmann has landed in the eye of a social media storm because he dressed up as a Harlem Globetrotter (link).
 






Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
2,510
Let's not pretend like whites (American/NATO) and their invasion of the country had nothing to do with that.
Is the US or NATO organising the slave trade then?

Can't always blame the elite. Some people just don't like the way other people look and the elite don't always have something to do with that.
 






Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
2,510
African slaves were being traded prior to Islam so how was Islam responsible for or built upon racism if it didn't exist at the time? What a fail.
African slaves were being traded before Europeans and colonialism, especially to Arabs, so why is that not a fail? Not to mention that the beginning of the Arab slave trade coincided with the birth of Islam in the 7th century.
 






Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
2,510
By the looks of it, I think KF also pointed it out, all the other kids had different animals on their sweaters while the only black child got "being the coolest monkey in the jungle". It's not only racist but the pressing issue is how did they think they could get away with it?
Maybe because they didn't think it would be considered racist? Ever thought about the simplest explanation?
 






Last edited:
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
2,510
The picture you posted which Plasticity was addressing didn't show any Arab armies "invading" any European country. What it did show was Arabs taking back their own lands and liberating other Arabs.
The Arabs were peoples from the Arabian peninsula and some regions north of it, not the regions that are indicated on the map. The Egyptians weren't Arabs, they were who we now know as Copts. People in northern Syria and beyond were also Semitic peoples, like Arameans, Chaldeans, Phoenicians, but not Arabs. The regions on that map have been subject to Arabisation, they were not originally Arab.
 






Last edited:

Helioform

Star
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
2,640
From that article:

“We are black and we are proud. We are black and we are beautiful. We are black and we are not ashamed of being black.”

Ok then why the heck did you vandalize and steal from a fricking shop if you are proud of being black? If you really were proud, there is nothing anyone could say that would bother you and you wouldn't have to do this kind of stupid stuff.
 






Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
2,510
I'm not defining capitalism in any way but since capitalism is concerned with profit, outsourcing is encouraged because it's cheap labor, that's why all corporations do it. The main driving force in capitalism is profit, you're in denial if you think that outsourcing is not a good thing to them. You can't criticize a capitalistic practice then say you fully support capitalism.
That would be motivated by the maximisation of profit, which isn't inherently capitalistic because profit usually results from a voluntary mutual trade. If the cheap employees don't agree to work for a company, because they're not being paid enough, they are free not to work for that company, but they still do because it's in their personal interest. A socialist nation could seek the highest profit in international trade to the benefit of the nation and its people. That doesn't mean it's exploiting the other nations because it seeks maximum profit from the transaction, because if that nation didn't see any profit in it, it wouldn't have traded in the first place. The only difference between them is that the profit is nationalised opposed to the corporations where profit is private. But who's to say that the state would spend that profit more ethically than a private organisation? Nothing really. Marx has got you by the balls if you think there's something inherently immoral or moral about an economic system, whether capitalism or socialism. They're both amoral, materialistic and mechanical at their core. It's a material dialectic, not a morale one. It is the ethical awareness of the people that will decide whether either of them is deployed for the better or worse.
 






Last edited:

mecca

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,137
profit usually results from a voluntary mutual trade
How is it voluntary if it's necessary for survival?
If the cheap employees don't agree to work for a company, because they're not being paid enough, they are free not to work for that company
No they are not because the need to money to buy food and live, if the only jobs available are low pay then they can't just decide to walk away... they depend on what little money they get from their job for their very survival. If they did not continue to work, then they would literally be homeless and starving. If someone is forced to get a job in order to live, then it's not voluntary.
But who's to say that the state would spend that profit more ethically than a private organisation?
How is this relevant to what I was saying?
if you think there's something inherently immoral or moral about an economic system
A system based on exploitation and selfishness is inherently immoral.
 






Last edited:

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,310
The voice that defends exploitation is the voice of privilige. The voice of selfishness. The voice of that which is lowest, of that which is base. It is degeneracy.

The voice which benefits from exploitation and is only concerned with its own selfish interests and doesn't give a damn about the human race.
 






Top