H10

What fact, which fact, what specific facts and of what nature?

No one has white skin. pink, beige, brown, yellow, red, but not white. Ive never seen a person with skin the color of the background text here., at least not a live one. The concept of whiteness was invented to discriminate against people classified as non-white. Are you aware that many groups we now think of white were classified as non-white historically?

In your mind, what would be enough to prove the point?

Sure but he is trying to move away from a historical fact that white race (not the skin, not the color) but the idea, was constructed for the sole purpose of spreading racist policies and racially discriminating against non-white people, specifically african americans, black indians and red indians. and later expanded to yellow and brown races. That is the problem of whiteness. It has no known parallel among other groups. He is trying to say well some professors are bias, sure this is a fact, or dismiss entire swaths of study and challenge the experts, when it is not the experts who are the issue. The issue is white supremacy and white racism.

Hundreds. No, I was addressing your arguments though, which kind of did argue both ways. It is true not every expert is the best, but it is also true those european scholars where a minority of the earth scholars who thought the world was flat, most africans, asians understood it was round.

Sure, but we also have good academics.

I disagree, experts have degrees, they are dedicated to the study of topics. One could even say the same about science and climate change, how many european scientist claimed the world was flat?

So should all of society just suspend experts, evidence, facts and trust your judgement?

What if the experts have found the purpose was for creating the problem and that as such, whiteness is the problem?

It means to use words that are not so big, a more simply vocabulary. So you don't know when did the people who identify themselves as white, begin to identify themselves as white in the Americas, and for what purpose did they do so?

Well I can not accuse you of being mealy mouthed here. A good ol pat on the back for wr/ws

No I didn't miss it, I asked you to clarify it, and lower your vocabulary. And now you finally have done it. When did the people who identify themselves as white, begin to identify themselves as white in the Americas, and for what purpose did they do so?

I strongly suspect and have come to learn that one of the ways that white supremacy and white racism are practiced by white people is by [trying to] confusing non-white people. I have experienced a pattern where white people attempt to divert the conversation away from racism whenever it is brought up. I noticed I asked you quiet some time ago to define racism(at least how you are using it) and you have gone on to define bigotry, to challenge my definition of bigotry, to tell me what terms are in the dictionary, and then tell me what kind of person you suspect I am. Can you lower your vocabulary in defining the term racism. What do you mean by discrimination and prejudice in your definition?

So in your mind racism is hating someone or not liking someone?

My usage of the term bigotry is consistent with my quote from the dictionary. I asked you to define racism, because I have come to learn most people are using generalist terms in speaking about racism rather than specialist terms (which you did). Can you lower your vocabulary in defining the term racism. What do you mean by discrimination and prejudice in your definition.

Professors in academia who study race and culture. racism and discrimination are treatment that is disparate that is not properly deserved nor what one ought deserve. It is true that women do face issues in other parts of the world, however one of the main ways that white supremacy and white racism is practiced, is when the topic of racism is brought up, they try to make confusion by diverting the conversation to a different matter (sexism is usually their favourite). As such I had made it a practice to not respond to these types of comments to reduce the amount of confusion victims of racism may experience. However, if you want to start a new thread, and invite me with those other topics, I will participate. And who has discriminated against jews more so than blonde hair blue eyed aryan german and european people who constructed the jewish holocaust? Racism is when people who come from the more powerful group with more access to resources uses that imbalance in power and resources to marginalize, exclude, exploit and subjugate people from the weaker group. The victims of racism and white supremacy should get to decide, but since whites are the more powerful resourced group, it means they get to decide. A white person does not have to take any deliberate, or conscious act to discriminate against a non-white person. This is a myth pushed by white supremacist because they are trying to play the intent game, full well knowing that intent is nearly impossible to prove unless the person admits to it. In most cases, intent is simply inferred from the actions and circumstances. Your intent is irrelevant, if your behaviour is racist and our discriminatory in effect. Just the fact that there are white people who do not deliberately discriminate show how bad the racism problem is! They are discriminating, and don't even know they are doing it, which is why they get so angry when they are called racist because they have trained themselves that a racist is a bad guy riding on horse back with sword and swastika or kkk beheading jews and non-whites. Learn how the concept of whiteness was created. Whites is not like yellowness, or redness or blackness or brownness, it is not simply meant to be a pseudo-descriptive type quality of phenotype. When you learn that, you will see that whiteness is the problem and white people are the problem as professor robert jensen eloquently describes. I agree, they should be proud of their german, italian, swedish, british whatever heritage. Those are not the problem, the problem is whiteness. The reason they have problems with whiteness, is because whiteness is the problem, what else should a person have a problem with except the problem? That is like asking why do cancer patients have a problem with cancer! I may not know as many non-whites as you, but I have never met a non-white peoples in large numbers who said, we wish we enslaved the africans and genocided them first, we wish we genocided the jews first, we wish we killed the red indians and black indians and stole all their land and we wish we eliminated the aboriginals and aboringe and maori in oceania and australia first. The white people who are trying to make atonement understand the issues and the problem of whiteness and have dedicated themselves to the study of this topic.

But not all whites define themselves as white, and even who is classified as white is very malleable and has changed several times even in the last 100 years. I think they understand whiteness as a cultural construct rather than merely physical attributes. When I see a course titled the problem of whiteness, it is not the skin color (white people are of a pink or beige skin color) but rather the cultural construct around white supremacy. Why was the concept of whiteness created in America, European pink skin people were not calling themselves white when they first came here. Once you figure that out, you will underrstand why the course title is not only not racist, but the most accurate term that can exist.

T " noun 1. a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, espon religion, politics, or race" bigot I noticed I asked you to define racism, and you instead went on to try to (erroneously) define bigotry. i find it suspect in how you are trying to slide and avoid answering how you define racism.

Define how you use the term racism. If you mean bigotry, as in not liking someone for their race, then that is a problem. However racism, is a much larger problem and creates bigotry. The racism problem is a white problem, no need to get mealy mouthed about it. Doesn't mean all whites are bad, or evil, or have devil horns.

The experts are telling us the vast majority of the white body behaves in a discriminatory manner. What is wrong with studying the facts and evidence? If facts and evidence show all whites are racist and discriminatory, then the schools have a responsibility to deconstruct that racism and discrimination with just and proper treatment. No one wants white people to feel defensive, rather they want them to stop practicing racism and discrimination. White people do not have to apologize for being born white, but they should apologize for oppressing other peoples, all the land theft, mass murder, nuclear bombs, disease spreading etc. All whites are some kind of a supremacist when you look at the facts and evidence, the schools are trying to fix this. We already have resentments and division in our society, we thought ignoring them would make it go away, but it turns out it has made it much worse. We have books written by white people like black like me, who've walked in the skin of african americans and concluded whites are bitter foaming at the mouth racist, we know whiteness is the problem, this is what the evidence shows, its not reds, yellows, blacks or browns, as president lula da silvia said, white people with blue eyes are the cause of this crisis. It is no one's fault but white people's so its time the academics stop acting all mealy mouthed and beating around the bush. Racism is a white problem, whiteness is the problem, the issues we are having in society now, deal with the bad behaviour of white people. And until they accept that and change their behaviour, things will be worse for everyone in society.

You mean like what Trump does with everyone else, and how all the "elites", all the "media" and all the "establishment" is against him? You mean that kind of victim mentality? Funny how I never hear anyone saying 9/11 victims or nice attack victims should get over their "victimhood". Never heard anyone tell them ww2 vets on veteran day get over your victimhood. How is Finland one of the least racist countries? Can you explain that to the forum?

You don't understand Ontario, the voters are not voting liberal because of a candidate but due to an allegiance to the liberal ideology, liberalism and leftist ideology. Ontario is the province that believes government can and should work for you to reduce your problems. Hence that whole tea party, right wing, get government out of the way will not succeed here. They can keep losing elections trying it or get with the program. The NDP have a better chance of forming a government than the conservatives do in Ontario. Wynne was not selected in the typical process, and it wasn't all bad during the 13 years, but they have done alot of bad. The conservative party has only been able to field 1 potential candidate who had any pull in Ontario and it was Rob Ford who was dogged by criminal scandals from drug dealing, beatings, crack smoking, ethics violations and racist language and using sex slurs on tv. I don't see Wynne or her gov't as doing a good job, but I do believe the conservative party will be a much bigger failure as it was under ernie eves, and mike harris. And most Ontarians think this way. This is where conservative candidates lose, they try to attack Wynne on her record, and then wynne brings up Harris, and the conservative will lose. Because the Harris government was easily the worse government in Ontarian history (although the Wynne is the most incompetent and 2nd most corrupt). As far as global adjustment charge, alot of those rural residents and businesses have been getting away with murder, they pay little tax compared to the cities and they were getting free and subsidized electricity charges. I am glad they have to pay their fair share now. Isn't cap and trade a national thing? I believe it is stupid and another tax where money will be wasted. Toronto has a corrupt mayor, a corrupt premier and the money is mismanaged to the point where even if they had 100% tax, they'd still run out of money, because you can never run out, of someone else's money.

Ontario is a leftist province, is Liberals lose, and there is no guarantee they do, but if they do, Id expect to see an ndp government or coaliton. I would not mind patrick brown, he seems better than wynne.

The tolling company who paid for tory's campaign

I watched the video, the concept is grossly flawed. He is saying there are more Republicans in the house and senate, so running left wing candidates on the far left will be less successful because Republicans will not work with them. This is a gross flaw for several reasons 1. Republicans block conservative democrats more than they do liberal ones. 2. It erroneously presumes that more Republicans getting elected to the house, senate and governorships, means that there is a large tidal wave of right wing republicans support. This is actually the opposite of the truth. Republican's voter base is shrinking and dying off, so they are resorting to tactics like voter caging, disenfranchisement, blocking voters from accessing the ballot, reducing the numbers of days voters can, eliminating early voting, and throwing in id requirements and purging voter rolls. In 2008-2010, Democrats were not thinking that Republicans would try to literally steal the elections in 2012-2016. Look at what occured in North carolina, the Republicans literally are trying to turn the state into a Republican dictatorship by stripping the powers of the govenor to governor because voter backlash despite all attempts to steal the election failed. 3. There is actually a tidal wave towards the left, as America has become increasingly progressive. Obama got 69 million votes from the progressive left who was staying home before and not voting because they don't vote for moderate democratic candidates. Who was the person drawing the crowds of 20,000, Clinton moderate republican, or farleft progressive sanders? Progressive left voters heavily outnumber Republicans. Democrats lose when they try to run republican light neo-con candidates. 20-30-40 years ago, it use to be true that Dems could only win by running southern republican conservative style type candidates like lbj, carter or clinton. Its just not the case anymore. We seen Obama turn red states blue by running on a extremely progressive platform of heathcare for all and win re-election. We seen him get senators in red states like alaska, virginia, and north carolina elected when normally democrats would have no chance in hell in getting elected in such a deep red state like alaska. 4. The real problem democrats face is that the leadership is old, out of touch with their base, want to take on large amounts of corporate money instead of appealing to the voting base due to the ease of which donor money can be turned into private money for a politician. If Sanders was not cheated by Clinton, he would have beat her, and had a much better chance at beating Trump. I can't say he would for sure. but Sanders understood how to talk to voters in a way to connect to them. Clinton was out of touch and had a terrible record and was very unliked by the democratic core. The dems need people like keith ellison leading the dnc, not corrupt wasserman-schultz, they need people like tim ryan leading the party in the house who can relate to the democratic, rust belt middle class and white male core, they need people like Sanders as the candidate or Warren or charismatic progressive candidates in order to win. Because when democrats run republican imitations like Clinton, the progressive majority stays home or votes republicans. You want proof of that, look at the election of Obama in 2008 on a county by county level, compared to Clinton in 2016. I just picked Wayne county (detroit) michigan. in 2008 Obama got 656,000 votes in total or 74% compared to McCains 24.5% or 216k In 2016 clinton 517k or 66.8% of the vote compared to 228k or 29.5% of the trump vote. In the state of Michigan, the entire state was decided by just 16,000 votes. Clinton lost 139k voters (who are mostly african american or white progressives in detroit) one city, and it cost her the entire state. Trump did not gain some land slide amount of voters. He added 200k voters to what Mccain had while clinton LOST 600k voters Obama had. Look at Wisconsin. In 2008 Obama got 1.67 million votes in wisconsin or 56% of the vote compared to McCains 1.258 million or 42.4% In 2016 Clinton got 1.382 million votes to Trumps 1.405 million votes losing by less than 23k votes state wide. In Milwaukee county, Wisconsins largest city, Obama got 67.5% of the vote and 317k votes compares to McCains 31% of the vote and 147k In the same county Clinton got 288k votes or 66% and Trump got 126k or 29%. Trump got even fewer votes than McCain in Milwaukee, so in theory, Clinton should have been able to grab those 20k extra votes up for grabs and add them to the 317k obama had. She was unable to hold on to them because by being right wing, progressives stayed home and didn't vote for her. This is why she had such a huge loss of voters in such a liberal city. Had she just held on to the obama progressives in one city, not even counting madison, she'd win the state. The Republican party is grossly unpopular in America, so much so, that in the last 7 elections they have have only one the popular vote 1 time. That is losing the majority of the voters 6 of 7 times. This is why they cheat so much, because they can not win without cheating.