Amanda is legit and has been for a long time.

Same reason Alabama banned Sesame Street long after PBS had it in every other state.

My mother would edit our episodes on VCR with all the spanish parts and visiting other countries out. So we could only watch that show on tape, never off the TV itself.

There is a reason why I have never felt the need to introduce her to her grandchildern.

I firmly believe that lack of exposure to people of different cultures or races leads people to be racist and not necessarily realize it. If you're never around X, how can you know you have an inappropriate reaction to X?

To illustrate this, I didn't know about my escalator phobia until I moved away for college. I entered the mall, saw these moving stair-things, and felt a deep fear in the pit of my stomach. I hadn't seen an escalator since I was a toddler and, if you'd asked me on high school, I'd have denied having a phobia.

(I've successfully worked on my phobia over the last decade, showing that changing inappropriate reactions is possible)

Yes. My experience has been that nobody is as racist as Northern men who move to Florida. My ex said he went to "the white school" in Michigan, up north is segregated for real. We had enforced school integration but as a kid I was not aware of it, just went to school with school kids - it still got sort of segregated but not really, and my kids even less so, it does work.

But then those guys move down here and are not prepared for how diverse our population is. And they react badly.

Pretty much the same in any country with a majority ethnic population. They lived in an area for hundreds, sometimes fighting wars for it, and so it's not easy to have them give away their lands to people who are completely different down to the religion and imagine a completely different future. America is being pushed to have a civil war over it though likely to other countries interest. One that is very ethnically populated mind you.

It's never the young kids that get offended by this stuff. That sort of bigotry is taught.

I really want people to learn the actual meaning of the word - it really says it all. And normally I argue for lingual drift and accepting the changed meaning of words, but in this case most people don't know the definition, but aside from a racial/identity implication, they're using it mostly correctly

Woke means looking at the system critically, not believing the things politicians and public officials tell you at face value, seeing how it's all designed to turn us against each other so we never attempt meaningful change.

In a phrase, it means "wake up to the lies and think for yourself"

Same thing as when Reagan used it for his campaign.

I mean, they couldn't go with George Wallace's "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" quite yet...

What about the bible?

Or when they put random people of colour in historical dramas. I get that they need to somehow include actors of all origins, but I can't help but feel like it's also a kind of white washing? Like, sorry but a black person would not be a noble at the Louis XIV court, how about you actually talk about what history was like from that perspective rather than just shoehorning the actors and pretend like everything was fine and dandy for people of colour in those days.

Radical compassionate homeless asexual socialist. He's woke af. I'm not a 100% sure on what woke is yet but I'm certain Jesus is woke.

Trump voters would've been the Romans crucifying Jesus because he was "disrespecting Roman authority" at the time and being a nuisance.

They are definitely turning on Jesus and have been for quite some time now. There is an interesting statement from the former head of SBC wherein he states churchgoers are finding Jesus' supposed teachings as being too woke and part of a liberal agenda. Can't make this up. It was only a matter of time.

But Jesus also didn't like mixing. That is why he instructed the apostles and other adherents to never teach gentiles and Samaritans. That was retconned years later by the church because they said people had visions of a resurrected jesus commanding them to mix with gentiles. But for a while there it was very much a racial/ethno in-group only. That is why Jesus supposedly stated he taught in parables; so gentiles wouldnt understand what he was talking about and find salvation. That is what Matthew 13:11-17 is about.

People need to stop characterizing Jesus as some socialists woke advocate like I see in this thread. His character wasn't. He didn't preach universal love and compassion, and he taught contradictory messages about pacifism probably because dozens of people created this character over centuries.

I honestly think people want to think the religion can't be that bad and that the adherents are just awful.

Woke = empathy for people who are different

It's what it's always meant.

The rightwingers complaining about it haven't changed the definition. The people steering their anger just don't want "the poors" realizing they should be mad at the ruling class. It benefits the wealthy if "the poors" are fighting each other.

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

LBJ

It's important to note he wasn't a proponent of it. He just realized that's what was happening and why people opposed the Civil Rights movement.

Let's not forget that these same people kept telling us to and I quote: "WAKE UP SHEEPLE" And now they get all pissed off that people woke up.

Also what is the opposite of woke? Sleep? Go to sleep? Sounds dystopian as fuck.

No offence, but Joe Rogaine was a moron from the start and his podcasts were always bottom of the barrel garbage

I'm ok for removing nazi-lite at the same time as nazi, though.

“As we say in Germany, if there’s a Nazi at the table and 10 other people sitting there talking to him, you got a table with 11 Nazis.”

I think when you tell me “I’m still friends with this racist because we need to know what they think.” You know what? We don’t. They haven’t thought anything “new” in 2,000 years. When you break bread with a Nazi, you tell them that they’re a member of society. They’re not. They don’t deserve to be. And they should know their hatreds make them unfit to be around decent people.

• Steven Saus

Then those people are stupid as fuck. No way around it.

Why not block the instance?

Lemmygrad is wrong about a lot of things, but they're not wrong about this. It's important to learn from the past so it does not keep repeating.

The concept of the "white race" was developed in the 17th century with the Atlantic slave trade. It is indeed a product of British colonization. The concept literally didn't exist before this. Before the 17th century, people who we would now think of as white identified mainly by nationality and religion.

The concept of whiteness as being a distinct and unifying factor among people from a variety of countries led to the field of scientific racism, which went on for around 2 centuries. This is where terms like "Caucasian" came from. Scientific racism was used as a reason by the Nazis to murder millions of Jews. Now in the 21st century, we know it is pseudoscience even though its terminology lingers.

This doesn't mean that people were blind to skin color before 17th century colonialism, as you pointed out with the Indian caste system that dates back as far as 3300BC. You can see in ancient Egyptian art a wide array of colored skin as well. From Egyptian literature, there aren't signs they really obsessed over it the way society does now.

I think we can all agree that things didn't go too well for non-white people after the invention of whiteness. The concept was founded in oppression and helps perpetuate oppression.

They may be a tankie but they’re not wrong that modern concept of race was invented as a part of the European slave trade and colonialism. I don’t think the United States has ever adequately reckoned with that fact as evidenced by this Karen Komittee crying about a fucking poster.

I'll make this one easy for you. The Guardian is a garbage white supremacist liberal rag that does the bidding of North Atlantic imperialists. But here's a shit article they wrote that explains this particular thing: https://www.theguardian.com/...

Here's the subtitle: "Before the 17th century, people did not think of themselves as belonging to something called the white race. But once the idea was invented, it quickly began to reshape the modern world"

That's right. There was no such thing as the white race until the 1600s. And here's the relevant excerpt:

[...] the plantation owners initially sought to protect themselves by giving their “Christian” servants legal privileges not available to their enslaved “Negroes”. The idea was to buy off the allegiance of indentured Europeans with a set of entitlements that, however meagre, set them above enslaved Africans. Toward the end of the 17th century, this scheme witnessed a significant shift: many of the laws that regulated slave and servant behaviour – the 1681 Servant Act in Jamaica, for example, which was later copied for use in South Carolina – began to describe the privileged class as “whites” and not as “Christians”.

Whiteness, white supremacy, was invented in the new settler state that became the USA. It was an extension of European supremacy and part of the liberalization process that was occurring throughout Europe as the "age of discovery" began lifting the merchant class into positions of power. This new financial class sought new social forms that would allow them to supplant kings while still maintaining the power structures they needed to continue extending their dominance across the world. Since kings were kings by divine right, they were literally working against a social fiction that required them to attack religion, which was impossible, so they needed new systems that directed power away from religious explanations. They needed to maintain Christianity as a power structure but divorce it from kings. Thus, from the 17th century onward, an entirely new system of racialization was devised and expanded including things like race science, anthropology, cherrypicking from religious and philosophical traditions, eventually incorporating Drawinian theory, and focused entirely on making the imperial project manageable.

In the US you see this pretty damningly with regards to the native population. They were a different race, they were not Christians, they needed to be mass murdered, their lands needed to be blighted and destroyed, their ways of life (plants, animals, and water) needed to be made extinct and poisoned beyond repair. To do this, the US needed to field a military into the frontier. That's the source of every town named "Fort Something". Those forts were created to exterminate and oppress native Americans. Those towns never stopped being that. It's just that they were victorious in their extermination campaigns. The laws are still on the books. The police force is still descended from the institutions of genocide. The roads, ports, prisons, residential neighborhoods, waterways, industrial zones, and agricultural zones around those towns are the living embodiment of the displacement efforts that trace themselves back to the frontier forts and their genocidal program, founded on racism.

And even The Guardian, shite rag that it is, is able to write about it.

Racism is not the same as personal bigotry. Whether Columbus was "racist" or not is irrelevant. European society was still developing racism as a system back in the 1400s. The concept of blood quantums, however, was developed around the same time Columbus was alive. So yes, there was systemic racism in Europe during Columbus's time, but there wasn't a "white race" concept at the time. It was mostly smaller races of different countries and what bound them all together was Christianity. White was explicitly codified as a concept in law in the Americas.

Hey thanks! It's great to be here.

I think it's important to exercise some intellectual humility and be open to other sources and be willing to question information that we agree with if it's coming from a single source - especially if that source has an open bias.

We don't know what we don't know - I would begin with a less biased source or include two sources with contrary biases.

Lol ok what's your solution for two brainwashed racist assholes who made the statements the blogger quoted? What should we do to them other then get upset and curse their names?