NationStates

Novus America wrote:It is interesting how for the far right white supremacists they are not white enough but for many on the left they are “too white”, albeit for not entirely clear reasons. Not that racism is reasonable of course, but still it is interesting.

I think it might be rooted in how they conceptualize race. To the far-right, race is a static thing based on innate genetic characteristics. Jews aren't white because they're the descendants of people who spoke a Semitic language and often had dark features (or red/ginger hair) compared to the little cherub baby-men the far-right tends to idealize. I'm pretty pale, but I've gotten several largely innocent comments about how my hair and eyes are dark and "Jewish" or "exotic" looking.

Meanwhile, the left envisions race, even if they will not summarize it thusly, as an extension of social, class-related, and cultural factors that organize us into a hierarchical society. The fact that Jewish people can pass as white, aren't othered as often as they used to be, and can be seen succeeding in America, where this sort of ideology is most pronounced and coherent, means that we ceased to be non-white to many. Even if the hate crimes haven't stopped.

However, broadly left-wing people tend to treat it as an innate property at times too, often depending on political and narrative convenience. That's probably not completely fair given the things mixed-race people have to grapple with, ranging from racism to issues of passing and identity, but it's something that seems to stand out when we get political actors talking about these issues. Especially when Anglos talk about them.

Novus America wrote:

Fahran wrote:I mean a lot of arguments to that effect are pretty much rooted in racism anyhow. The implication, even if it goes unspoken, is that we're not who we say we are. And this in spite of the Semitic language, the longstanding narratives, a rich culture that has endured for centuries in both Israel and the Diaspora, etc. I imagine this argument would hold weight with leftists if it didn't target the perception of Jewish "whiteness." Because it is absolutely a form of othering and racial discrimination. Nevermind that, as you pointed out, a lot of the Sephardim/Mizrachim would be perceived as brown simply by virtue of their geographical locations and languages. It's funny. Even the Ashkenazim weren't really seen as white until the late 1950s. After Israel had formed.

True, it is based in no small part of racism, that being “too white” (whatever that means) would somehow make them lesser. It is in large part of a Manichaen and racist standpoint prevalent amongst many of the left that “whites” always oppress “browns” and thus “whiteness” is bad.

Even though “white” vs “brown” is poorly defined and constantly shifting based on political expediency rather than any coherent logic. As you point out Jews before WWII were widely considered “non white” and most white supremacists still considered them “non white”.

As you point out the majority would also be likely considered “brown” by the left except for the fact they are Jews.
Which is extremely problematic and seems quite racist in itself.

It is interesting how for the far right white supremacists they are not white enough but for many on the left they are “too white”, albeit for not entirely clear reasons. Not that racism is reasonable of course, but still it is interesting.

to dip in for a moment (my position on the thread topic being similar to azania's) this view actually makes sense when you understand the historical evolution of race-and groups' place in it in the west has always been a struggle of power relations and coalition building rather than a static biological categorization
mind you i think categorizing jews as "white" is inaccurate but i do not exactly singlehandedly manipulate The Discourse

Kowani wrote:to dip in for a moment (my position on the thread topic being similar to azania's) this view actually makes sense when you understand the historical evolution of race-and groups' place in it in the west has always been a struggle of power relations and coalition building rather than a static biological categorization
mind you i think categorizing jews as "white" is inaccurate but i do not exactly singlehandedly manipulate The Discourse

This is absolutely a valid point.

Fahran wrote:

Novus America wrote:It is interesting how for the far right white supremacists they are not white enough but for many on the left they are “too white”, albeit for not entirely clear reasons. Not that racism is reasonable of course, but still it is interesting.

I think it might be rooted in how they conceptualize race. To the far-right, race is a static thing based on innate genetic characteristics. Jews aren't white because they're the descendants of people who spoke a Semitic language and often had dark features (or red/ginger hair) compared to the little cherub baby-men the far-right tends to idealize. I'm pretty pale, but I've gotten several largely innocent comments about how my hair and eyes are dark and "Jewish" or "exotic" looking.

Meanwhile, the left envisions race, even if they will not summarize it thusly, as an extension of social, class-related, and cultural factors that organize us into a hierarchical society. The fact that Jewish people can pass as white, aren't othered as often as they used to be, and can be seen succeeding in America, where this sort of ideology is most pronounced and coherent, means that we ceased to be non-white to many. Even if the hate crimes haven't stopped.

However, broadly left-wing people tend to treat it as an innate property at times too, often depending on political and narrative convenience. That's probably not completely fair given the things mixed-race people have to grapple with, ranging from racism to issues of passing and identity, but it's something that seems to stand out when we get political actors talking about these issues. Especially when Anglos talk about them.

True, although the Nazis made the Japanese “honorary Aryans” for similar political reasons, and the South African Apartheid government did also, because Japan was useful in their struggle against their other opponents. So although it is definitely the far right more focusing on rigid characterization based on descent, while for the left it it more based on class based politics, the far right has played a similar game sometimes as well so there is some overlap.

The interesting thing is by their logic, Asians will eventually be white, given despite ongoing racism, (again for South Africa Japanese white, in an interesting parallel) Asians actually are higher on average in the economic and education hierarchy than the average white. We are already seeing this issue on race based affirmative action in education, where it can actually now hurt Asians worse than whites. Which is really problematic for their ideology which is based in part on non whites being less economically and educationally advantaged.

This is also problematic for the far right as well, because if one non white group does better on things they claim are from immutable race characteristics than the average white, they too have a similar problem albeit based on different framework. They too also have to shift the racial classification to avoid undermining their underlying racial framework, even though the framework is different, the need to bend classifications to fit that framework remains.

True it makes some sense in terms that once Jews became more wealthy and educated that for the left they then moved from the “brown oppressed” to the “white oppressors”, if you accept their underlying Manichaen framework of rich white oppressors vs poor brown victims. But if you do not accept said framework, or how it shifts classification of race based on politics, it is not a valid standpoint.

Kowani wrote:

Novus America wrote:
True, it is based in no small part of racism, that being “too white” (whatever that means) would somehow make them lesser. It is in large part of a Manichaen and racist standpoint prevalent amongst many of the left that “whites” always oppress “browns” and thus “whiteness” is bad.

Even though “white” vs “brown” is poorly defined and constantly shifting based on political expediency rather than any coherent logic. As you point out Jews before WWII were widely considered “non white” and most white supremacists still considered them “non white”.

As you point out the majority would also be likely considered “brown” by the left except for the fact they are Jews.
Which is extremely problematic and seems quite racist in itself.

It is interesting how for the far right white supremacists they are not white enough but for many on the left they are “too white”, albeit for not entirely clear reasons. Not that racism is reasonable of course, but still it is interesting.

to dip in for a moment (my position on the thread topic being similar to azania's) this view actually makes sense when you understand the historical evolution of race-and groups' place in it in the west has always been a struggle of power relations and coalition building rather than a static biological categorization
mind you i think categorizing jews as "white" is inaccurate but i do not exactly singlehandedly manipulate The Discourse

Fair, but it is not counter to most of my points. Sure as I stated in the above the shifts are based on political expediency for the left. Still that is a very hard thing for many to on the left to acknowledge “we define race mostly to score political points” is not a good look. And hard to admit. And is increasingly untenable as Asians have come to a status on average similar to Jews.

Sure you can bend it somewhat, given it is more about as you note fitting people into an us vs them framework, not necessarily on physical characteristics or genetics, but still few on the left are willing to say “race has nothing to do with appearance, you are only not white as long as we deem it politically expedient”.

Once Jews moved to being the people in charge in Israel, and also after the Jewish socialist movements failed (there was some hope amongst many on the left Israel would be socialist, and actually the Soviets were one of the first to recognize them) then they could no longer be “brown and oppressed” and where them moved to the “white oppressor” side of the Manichaen framework. So I can see why it was done, I still think it is bunk because I do not agree with the underlying framework, but you are correct it does somewhat logically flow from said framework.

Novus America wrote:

Kowani wrote:to dip in for a moment (my position on the thread topic being similar to azania's) this view actually makes sense when you understand the historical evolution of race-and groups' place in it in the west has always been a struggle of power relations and coalition building rather than a static biological categorization
mind you i think categorizing jews as "white" is inaccurate but i do not exactly singlehandedly manipulate The Discourse

Fair, but it is not counter to most of my points. Sure as I stated in the above the shifts are based on political expediency for the left.

i don't think this is historically accurate or a fair understanding of what i said

Still that is a very hard thing for many to on the left to acknowledge “we define race mostly to score political points” is not a good look. And hard to admit. And is increasingly untenable as Asians have come to a status on average similar to Jews.Sure you can bend it somewhat, given it is more about as you note fitting people into an us vs them framework, not necessarily on physical characteristics or genetics, but still few on the left are willing to say “race has nothing to do with appearance, you are only not white as long as we deem it politically expedient”.

incoherent sputtering
do you seriously think the left is the group that is the primary determinator of who counts as white in america
like your understanding of the left is at best internally contradictory and at worst historically illiterate

Once Jews moved to being the people in charge in Israel, and also after the Jewish socialist movements failed (their was some hope amongst many on the left Israel would be socialist, and actually the Soviets were one of the first to recognize them) then they could no longer be “brown and oppressed” and where them moved to the “white oppressor” side of the Manichaen framework. So I can see why it was done, I still think it is bunk because I do not agree with the underlying framework, but you are correct it does somewhat logically flow from said framework.

do you think the role of the israeli government in oppressing palestinians might have a role to play here
like i know jews aren't israel but if we concede that jews are thought of as "white oppressors" (a conception i don't think is accurate) because of their role in israeli governance than what that governance was might be relevant to that discussion

Kowani wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Fair, but it is not counter to most of my points. Sure as I stated in the above the shifts are based on political expediency for the left.

i don't think this is historically accurate or a fair understanding of what i said

Still that is a very hard thing for many to on the left to acknowledge “we define race mostly to score political points” is not a good look. And hard to admit. And is increasingly untenable as Asians have come to a status on average similar to Jews.Sure you can bend it somewhat, given it is more about as you note fitting people into an us vs them framework, not necessarily on physical characteristics or genetics, but still few on the left are willing to say “race has nothing to do with appearance, you are only not white as long as we deem it politically expedient”.

incoherent sputtering
do you seriously think the left is the group that is the primary determinator of who counts as white in america
like your understanding of the left is at best internally contradictory and at worst historically illiterate

Once Jews moved to being the people in charge in Israel, and also after the Jewish socialist movements failed (their was some hope amongst many on the left Israel would be socialist, and actually the Soviets were one of the first to recognize them) then they could no longer be “brown and oppressed” and where them moved to the “white oppressor” side of the Manichaen framework. So I can see why it was done, I still think it is bunk because I do not agree with the underlying framework, but you are correct it does somewhat logically flow from said framework.

do you think the role of the israeli government in oppressing palestinians might have a role to play here
like i know jews aren't israel but if we concede that jews are thought of as "white oppressors" (a conception i don't think is accurate) because of their role in israeli governance than what that governance was might be relevant to that discussion

No, I do not think the left is the sole or primary determinant of what the culture as a whole thinks of race (because that a constantly shitting and often incoherent mess as well), but the thing is they still play a role in who they have to work into their ideological framework. Sure they do not necessarily pick who gets richer or poorer, so they have to modify their classifications based on outside conditions, but they still choose their conceptual framework, and try to fit things into it based on things outside of their hands. That is part of political expediency, you do not choose what is politically expedient, but you choose to BE politically expedient, and that means bending the way you classify things to meet a combination of both your ideological framework and what actually gets votes.

Or one could just dump their ideological framework entirely when it ceases to make sense, admit maybe they were wrong and it never made sense in the first place, but that is rarely done. People may try to shift reality, or at least their perception of it to meet their ideology as they may also shift their ideology to meet reality, and often do an interesting combination of both.

The class and social conflict based ideological basis for race held by many of the left does help decide who they determine is what race or not, and sometimes this is not necessarily consistent with the rest of society. There are of course those willingly to be more politically flexible vs the hardliners who do not want to compromise who might come to different conclusions despite being considered on the same side of the ideological spectrum.

Which goes back to the issue of changing the ideology to fit perception reality vs trying to change the perception of reality to fit the ideology.

Please note this is definitely a vast oversimplification, but that is part of the issue.
Different people do have different views of who is what race. The fact the many (albeit it not all) on left and the far right and simultaneously hold Jews to be white and non white, within the same society, shows that societal views play a role, but is not the only factor in their determination, otherwise two groups in the same society could not choose to adopt opposite conclusions.

Oh I never said that was not part of the discussion. I do think that plays a role. As I said that partly explains the shift, once they had the dominant role inthe government, become the dominant economic and political class, and ceased to live up to the expectations that Israel might become socialist, (had Israel become a socialist state and remained poor that would have probably made them “less white”) and Israel became wealthy, they became white within that particular classification system (which again is not necessarily one shared by society as a whole).

Senkaku wrote:

The United Colonies of Earth wrote:
They are ancient people. They've been around for millennia, and only slaughter the native inhabitants when rocket batteries, rocks and guns are within a hundred meters of them.

Flying irrigation pipes and slingshots versus drones and main battle tanks, yes, it seems like a very reasonable contest (??).

The destructive power is overwhelmingly to one side, but as long as someone raises an objection to an army imposing the will of its state on somewhere, what else can it be but a contest?

Why does Israeli propaganda always fall into random shitposting about antiquity instead of remaining grounded in the current conflict?

Because it is shitposting.

After nationalists tried to genocide them, I think they deserve a place of their own to call home- actions of the government aside.

Great, so now we have a nuclear Liberia in the Middle East— why does anyone think the American proclivity for using our undesirables to colonize their mythological “homelands” is an appropriate compensation for people who’ve faced down genocide?

Pity.

All states are just army mobilization centers anyway,

There are literally states with no militaries all over the world.

Yes. That doesn't release them from their origins.

and armies are known for their love of using force on anything in sight.

Well, I guess since you’ve made an essentializing and deeply pessimistic statement about human nature, we should all just give up on wanting Israel not to do genocide?

No. Just provide a strong incentive for them to not become genociders.

I don’t think they should have as much power as they do nor should they attack Palestine, while they intrinsically have the right to live I also think they land they are on isnt only theirs

Senkaku wrote:There are literally states with no militaries all over the world.

Whether or not they called it the armed forces, all states have some organization that projects state violence, whether that be the police, or some weird paramilitary they insist is not a military.

Vassenor wrote:

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:Elaborate

Where did I say I support terrorism?

Did anyone supporting Israel say they support ethnic cleansing?

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Where did I say I support terrorism?

Did anyone supporting Israel say they support ethnic cleansing?

Because that's what Israel is doing against Palestine.

Novus America wrote:

Kowani wrote:
i don't think this is historically accurate or a fair understanding of what i said

incoherent sputtering
do you seriously think the left is the group that is the primary determinator of who counts as white in america
like your understanding of the left is at best internally contradictory and at worst historically illiterate

do you think the role of the israeli government in oppressing palestinians might have a role to play here
like i know jews aren't israel but if we concede that jews are thought of as "white oppressors" (a conception i don't think is accurate) because of their role in israeli governance than what that governance was might be relevant to that discussion

No, I do not think the left is the sole or primary determinant of what the culture as a whole thinks of race (because that a constantly shitting and often incoherent mess as well), but the thing is they still play a role in who they have to work into their ideological framework. Sure they do not necessarily pick who gets richer or poorer, so they have to modify their classifications based on outside conditions, but they still choose their conceptual framework, and try to fit things into it based on things outside of their hands. That is part of political expediency, you do not choose what is politically expedient, but you choose to BE politically expedient, and that means bending the way you classify things to meet a combination of both your ideological framework and what actually gets votes.

Or one could just dump their ideological framework entirely when it ceases to make sense, admit maybe they were wrong and it never made sense in the first place, but that is rarely done. People may try to shift reality, or at least their perception of it to meet their ideology as they may also shift their ideology to meet reality, and often do an interesting combination of both.

The class and social conflict based ideological basis for race held by many of the left does help decide who they determine is what race or not, and sometimes this is not necessarily consistent with the rest of society. There are of course those willingly to be more politically flexible vs the hardliners who do not want to compromise who might come to different conclusions despite being considered on the same side of the ideological spectrum.

Which goes back to the issue of changing the ideology to fit perception reality vs trying to change the perception of reality to fit the ideology.

Please note this is definitely a vast oversimplification, but that is part of the issue.
Different people do have different views of who is what race. The fact the many (albeit it not all) on left and the far right and simultaneously hold Jews to be white and non white, within the same society, shows that societal views play a role, but is not the only factor in their determination, otherwise two groups in the same society could not choose to adopt opposite conclusions.

Oh I never said that was not part of the discussion. I do think that plays a role. As I said that partly explains the shift, once they had the dominant role inthe government, become the dominant economic and political class, and ceased to live up to the expectations that Israel might become socialist, (had Israel become a socialist state and remained poor that would have probably made them “less white”) and Israel became wealthy, they became white within that particular classification system (which again is not necessarily one shared by society as a whole).

staring into space
do i need to stop and explain how the left conceives of race
'cause i feel like all you have for exposure here is a Soc 101 course and maybe some twitter users and this is
not really germane to anyone's understanding of it-which leads to your analysis being brain breakingly bad

It is useless to say that any state has the 'right' to exist. A state's existence is an earned privilege forged by the sum of its administrative, diplomatic, and martial abilities to sway its inhabitants into acknowledging and tolerating its government over them for one more day, and to outcompete all rivals for that acknowledgement and tolerance.

Kowani wrote:

Novus America wrote:
No, I do not think the left is the sole or primary determinant of what the culture as a whole thinks of race (because that a constantly shitting and often incoherent mess as well), but the thing is they still play a role in who they have to work into their ideological framework. Sure they do not necessarily pick who gets richer or poorer, so they have to modify their classifications based on outside conditions, but they still choose their conceptual framework, and try to fit things into it based on things outside of their hands. That is part of political expediency, you do not choose what is politically expedient, but you choose to BE politically expedient, and that means bending the way you classify things to meet a combination of both your ideological framework and what actually gets votes.

Or one could just dump their ideological framework entirely when it ceases to make sense, admit maybe they were wrong and it never made sense in the first place, but that is rarely done. People may try to shift reality, or at least their perception of it to meet their ideology as they may also shift their ideology to meet reality, and often do an interesting combination of both.

The class and social conflict based ideological basis for race held by many of the left does help decide who they determine is what race or not, and sometimes this is not necessarily consistent with the rest of society. There are of course those willingly to be more politically flexible vs the hardliners who do not want to compromise who might come to different conclusions despite being considered on the same side of the ideological spectrum.

Which goes back to the issue of changing the ideology to fit perception reality vs trying to change the perception of reality to fit the ideology.

Please note this is definitely a vast oversimplification, but that is part of the issue.
Different people do have different views of who is what race. The fact the many (albeit it not all) on left and the far right and simultaneously hold Jews to be white and non white, within the same society, shows that societal views play a role, but is not the only factor in their determination, otherwise two groups in the same society could not choose to adopt opposite conclusions.

Oh I never said that was not part of the discussion. I do think that plays a role. As I said that partly explains the shift, once they had the dominant role inthe government, become the dominant economic and political class, and ceased to live up to the expectations that Israel might become socialist, (had Israel become a socialist state and remained poor that would have probably made them “less white”) and Israel became wealthy, they became white within that particular classification system (which again is not necessarily one shared by society as a whole).

staring into space
do i need to stop and explain how the left conceives of race
'cause i feel like all you have for exposure here is a Soc 101 course and maybe some twitter users and this is
not really germane to anyone's understanding of it-which leads to your analysis being brain breakingly bad

I simply said how many on the what is considered left seem to understand view race, not all of them. But how a large portion. Remember many considered on the left only have a Soc 101 course and Twitter to base things on. That level would in fact represent a large portion of what they believe. Soc 101 and Twitter are a substantial portion of our political discourse. Only 56% of Americans for example know the 3 branches of government. You really think most have a deep understanding of race? Twitter and Soc 101 is how votes are cast and many decisions made.

By your own admission you acknowledge part of the reason Israel and by extension Jews are viewed as white is because of their position as the dominant economic and and military position in the region. Had Israel lost wars it won, had Israel not become a major economic and military power, had it been destroyed, had it become socialist and not seen as a western ally, the conception of its racial makeup would have likely been different amongst many.

Which is supportive of the general concept. The people holding the racial framework did not choose the Israel to fail to become socialist, they probably would have rather it did become socialist. They did not choose for it to win the Six Days War, one of the watershed moments. They also did not choose for many of the right, especially amongst the Evangelical Christian movements that became so influential by the 70s and 80s to unquestionably embrace Israel on religious grounds, they would have probably preferred that not happen, etc.

But when all that did happen, when it was easier to work the Palestinian Arabs in as the brown oppressed vs the Israelis as the white oppressors, well the result does flow in part from the underlying framework as you point out. When the Israeli’s have US made fighter jets, and the Palestinian Arabs have stones, AKs and homemade rockets, it does politically look and work better that way.

Ortaviostan wrote:

ImperialRussia wrote:God will always defend Israel if the world attacks Israel god will curse the world with 3 days of darkness stopping time unleashing demons upon the world for three days if from those who not have the blood of Jesus Christ and keeping there church then their pet or any animal will become demon food after those three days there be nothing but famine and humans have to turn to cannibalism after the three days of darkness.

Your god is bad.

My god is just and shouldn’t care for the flesh of humanity but only that true know to follow god

Helliniki Katastasis wrote:

Ortaviostan wrote:
Your god is bad.

This is bordering on thread jacking, please don't make this a religion vs religion thread, there's already one of those.

It already is about religion

Israel has the right to exist because our god Jesus Christ allow it to exist

Ortaviostan wrote:

ImperialRussia wrote:God will always defend Israel if the world attacks Israel god will curse the world with 3 days of darkness stopping time unleashing demons upon the world for three days if from those who not have the blood of Jesus Christ and keeping there church then their pet or any animal will become demon food after those three days there be nothing but famine and humans have to turn to cannibalism after the three days of darkness.

Your god is bad.

And your false god is going to drag you down

ImperialRussia wrote:

Ortaviostan wrote:
Your god is bad.

And your false god is going to drag you down

My god is a lesbian your argument is invalid

Vassenor wrote:

ImperialRussia wrote:And your false god is going to drag you down

My god is a lesbian your argument is invalid

Again false god

Vassenor wrote:

ImperialRussia wrote:And your false god is going to drag you down

My god is a lesbian your argument is invalid

lol she's got you there

It should return to Hyperborea, given that Israel is the homeland of Indo-European peoples.

ImperialRussia wrote:Israel has the right to exist because our god Jesus Christ allow it to exist

Jesus is a real prick for supporting apartheid. Given how awful your god is maybe Satan's actually really cool, he does have great taste in music

ImperialRussia wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
My god is a lesbian your argument is invalid

Again false god

That's just, like, your opinion, man.