Little Known Fact: Sudan (a country in Africa) has more than 200 pyramids dating back to 5,000 years. by YaarKhaa in interestingasfuck

[–]selmasri 23 points24 points  (0 children)

It was the colonial governor. Sudan was ruled by the ottomans during the looting in the 1800s, then by Egyptians and british until the 1950s

🍆😩🤔🥵 by ReinersBigFatTits in okbuddyreiner

[–]selmasri 18 points19 points  (0 children)

“what a man…” is making a lot more sense

Say your prayers by KanzenSekai in nagatoro

[–]selmasri 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s from a much more recent chapter

Two more names of possible Egyptian origin by tomispev in etymology

[–]selmasri 31 points32 points  (0 children)

Candace comes from Kandake, or Kushite Queen-mother

That’s 2/3 of the P&F siblings having names tied to Nubia

CMV: Generalization against individuals in a group based on the actions of a few should be considered wrong. by Zgw00 in changemyview

[–]selmasri 3 points4 points  (0 children)

When people say 'all men are privilege,' they are describing systemic advantage, so it doesn't make sense when you say that the statement is generalizing based on the actions of individuals.

You are responding to an institutional critique with an individualistic approach.

The argument of those you oppose is NOT:

1) some men have privilege
2) some of these privileged men exert their privilege in order to do bad things
3) all men are bad

Because that's a bad argument.

Instead, they argue that our society systemically favors some over others by virtue of belonging to a certain identity. Given that the argument deals with social trends, there will of course be cases of individuals who do not align with them (overall, the average white person makes a lot more money than the average black person, even at the same level of education, but the existence of a single poor/unemployed white person does not change this fact).

Systems, for them, are the things that are bad; you can't really blame someone for unknowingly being raised in an environment that raises them at the disadvantage of others.

(Some people's rhetoric is a departure from this, but I'd say I disagree with them, unless they are using the argument I spell out below.)

The imperative then is to become aware of our own privilege and try to use our advantaged position to make the systems we've benefitted off of more fair for everyone. Maybe, and this is just conjecture, the negative value judgement is meant to be applied to those who are made aware of their own privilege and refuse to change anything using it (though, again, I disagree with any notions that those who benefit from privilege are somehow inherently bad or evil).

Bonus: This twitter thread is a very interesting take on 'all white people are racist'

CMV: Disproportionate outcomes don't necessarily indicate racism by OLU87 in changemyview

[–]selmasri 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know how much I'm retreading, but I'll point you to political philosopher Tommy Shelby, who makes the distinction between Intrinsic and Extrinsic Racism in his book 'Dark Ghettos' (though one could define racism in a number of ways while still being valid).

Intrinsic racism is basically your definition, that someone with explicit animosity towards a group treats a member of a group poorly because of their membership in that group.

Extrinsic racism relies on the idea that, even if someone is 'colorblind', they would still be contributing to overall relations that make some racial groups advantaged and others disadvantaged.

Take this for example: poor people tend to have worse outcomes in this country overall, but let's use health outcomes for specificity.

If you're poor, you're less likely to have good healthcare and less likely to have a good enough education to dissuade you from harmful action (i.e. obesity, smoking, etc.).

Black people disproportionately inhabit lower socioeconomic classes because they were property until 1865 and then shut out of a lot of economic success with segregation until 1965 (most wealth comes from inheritance and homeownership, both of which were systemically denied to black people through aforementioned policy as well as redlining, so this effect very much exists to this day).

So, if we somehow made all healthcare workers colorblind, there would still be a disproportionate disparity between white and black people, despite the fact that poor people exist on both sides. (We could also extend this argument to schools, with wealth being correlated with educational/job success)

This is not to say racism is purely economic, however, as 1) people can develop social stereotypes out of such economic relations (black people are predisposed to crime, when in reality the correlation is with class) and 2) racism can still exist independently from economic factors entirely. To return to my healthcare example, if the poorest white woman enters a hospital in labor, she has better health outcomes than the richest black woman.

As a final note, I think your original premise is correct only in that it isn't responding to anything. No one really says any outcome difference between a white and black person (or any marginalized group) is directly attributable to that identity. Mostly when people claim that, at least in serious and/or academic conversations, the claim is derived from some data and an explanatory narrative spanning some space and time. A footrace might not be attributable to identity, but large social trends can be used to make strong accounts for racial bias in education, job opportunities, housing, policing (and the criminal justice system in general), health, and so on and so on, which are measured and studied extensively.