Interesting Global News
What is global news?
Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. No social media posts
Avoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
- [email protected] - International and local legal news.
- [email protected] - Technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
- [email protected] - Interesting articles, projects, and research that doesn't fit the definition of news.
- [email protected] - News and information from Europe.
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
view the rest of the comments
That's easy.
For starters: Go to China. Go to the middle east. Go to Zimbabwe. Go to the wrong parts of Brazil or South Africa.
Hell, go to Northern Ireland.
It's an idiotic thing to state that white people are not and have never been oppressed.
Plenty of down-votes but strangely no responses.
I mean, overwhelmingly people aren't racially discriminated against for being white so I'm not sure what it is you're trying to back up.
Sure it happens. The one that's closest to home for me in that list is Northern Ireland. White Catholics here were abused, but it was by white people so nothing to do with the colour of their skin. Honestly such a terrible example with absolutely no understanding for historical context.
I've spent non-trivial time in the Middle East. Sure I'm not at the same social class as Arabs there but I was sure fucking glad I wasn't brown.
China, wot? Yeah people stare at me but nobody was nasty. If anything I was a novelty.
White people in South Africa were gonna get what they were gonna get in a post apartheid world where they pillaged and oppressed until quite recently. That doesn't make it right but it makes it inevitable.
They're all very poorly thought out, edge case examples with the exception of Zimbabwe unless I'm missing others that I'm not aware of.
The Irish have been abused and degrqded by the British for Centuries. Still are, not nearly like they used to be, but its still there.
China. You know they officially call white people a racist slur right?
Middle East: Not as bad as Middle eastern women or anyone from southeast Asia. Still racist.
South Africa: yup, cant say they didnt deserve it, but its still racism, also not inevitable.
I know very well. I'm Irish. Pretty sure still have our own "and the Irish" section in British airports as a holdover from the troubles. The point I'm making is that it had nothing to do with being white and I haven't met any British people trying to abuse or degrade me for being Irish. My sister lives there and is married to an English man so I visit frequently.
China: I didn't experience any overt racism there because of the colour of my skin. We have derogatory words for basically everyone in English but it doesn't mean people use them. Hell, we call the British "Tans" if we're feeling belligerent towards them. "Paddy" has lost all meaning as a slur against the Irish.
Middle east: Sure. There I did experience it but it was incredibly mild and as I said I was very glad I wasn't brown.
Anyway, my main point was this:
And I feel that it stands and yes there are exceptions but the historical weight of racism hasn't fallen on white people because of the colour of their skin.
What do you you mean "wrong parts"? 🤨
White (an invented and morphose social category predicated on anti-Blackness) people have never been oppressed for being white.
Imagine actually believing this.
The concept of "white" as a race dates back to WW2, at most. Before then, being from France was as ethnically important a distinction as being from England, Spain, Germany, Ireland, or China. Due to the long history of conflict amongst European nations, there was no unified sense of race due to something as simple as skin color.
When the Irish immigrated to the US, they were considered equivalent to black people by Americans and competed for the same jobs.
The British, inspired by the American ethnic cleansings of the Native American tribes, attempted to ethnically cleanse the Irish from Ireland for their land. That's what the famine in Ireland actually was. There was a scarcity of potatoes, but otherwise there was plenty of food - so long as you were British. In fact, there's a statue of a Native American in northern Ireland commemorating the Native tribes' aid during the famine, because they recognized what the British were doing and were one of the few groups to send supplies to the Irish. Nobody else cared, because they were Irish, not (insert country here).
It goes back farther than that, but it is a social and legal category people have sued in attempt to be considered as.
Appreciate the correction, the first time I could think of as "white" being a unified thing was the white supremacists of the "Aryan master race" era.
Wow I'll make sure to tell all my black friends, I'm sure that'll endear me to them.
Well, this is just completely false, you're completely disconnected from reality. Irish were never blocked from whites-only schools were they? Irish people were never subject to interracial marriage laws afaik. Were any Irish ever entirely excluded from being able to immigrate to the U.S.? I know it's popular among certain groups to pretend certain Europeans faced the same disadvantages as formerly enslaved African-Americans but frankly it's incredibly insulting and tone deaf as fuck.
Theory is fine you guys but you need to actually go out into the world and interact with people sometimes.
I am...unclear on what you're actually arguing about. You went from arguing that white people are oppressed for being white and/or that white as a unified race wasn't the invention of racism to separate the white European ethnicities from black people, to straw-manning me to argue that white people were never oppressed the same way black people have been (and continue to be).
Both me and the OP are saying that the idea of a single "white" race was the invention of racists. To separate white Europeans from other people. Before the white supremacists coined the term white as a race, your race was French, Swedish, Irish, British, Russian, etc. White is just a label to lump all these Europeans from disparate cultural backgrounds who hated each other's guts together to form a unified front against "the savage black man" and "the Asian menace."
And nobody has ever been oppressed for being white. When was the last time you heard of somebody being passed over for a job because they were too white, or the cops going around arresting all the white people off the streets. White people probably suffer the same treatment as other foreigners in xenophobic countries, but they're not singled out for being white.
I'm not arguing anything, just pointing out some bullshit.
What bullshit? Do you think that white people are oppressed? Or that the idea of white as a race wasn't the product of a bunch of racists who wanted to prove the superiority of white people over black people?
I was wondering when—not if—you were going to pull "I have Black friends".
Cool thought-terminating cliche too bad you didn't actually address anything I said.
Cry some more.
Like your mom when we run a train on her?
I don't have to; I know from personal experience what it's like to be right and correct. I recommend you abandon you current beliefs and try not being wrong yourself.
Maybe one day you'll wake up and realize that you don't know everything and are not always "right and correct." One day maybe you'll realize that others have lived experiences that are different than yours, but maybe not and you'll just float through life thinking your experience and your views are The Truth.
Possible, but irrelevant to this situation wherein I am right, cool, and correct.
Do you know where the term "slave" comes from?
You aren't making the point you think you're making, and further from having seen your post history I know you aren't arguing in good faith.
Are the slavic people not white? What point do you think I'm making?
Slavic slaves in the Roman empire predate the social construct of whiteness. Implying they were oppressed because they were white is one of the stupider things I've read on the Internet today.
Okay, modern day. Look at the DEI initiatives. Literally just systemic racism against white people (and Asian people, but thats not what this argument is about), thats why they keep getting slapped down in court, and now having laws directly passed against even teaching them because they are so racist.
Lol. Girl, hush.
Next tell us how libraries are "woke".
Libraries aren't woke. What are you even talking about?
Aww, you were on a roll.
You had "DEI", "reverse racism"... a couple more punches and you could have got "shithead bingo". I understand it comes with free breadsticks.
There isn't a point in talking to you, is there?
Dei is not remotely racist unless you believe the idiotic shit from fox News and newsmax
Treating people differently based on the color of their skin is textbook racism
Did the people oppressing Slavs consider them white and were they oppressed for being white?
Barbary slave trade?
Read through that entire article and didn't read one word about anyone being oppressed for being white.
it seems kind of obvious what their test for "non-muslim" likely was
White people can't say
أَشْهَدُ أَنْ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا ٱللَّٰهُ وَأَشْهَدُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ ٱللَّٰهِIn front of two witnesses?
i really don't imagine it would've made much difference, kind of like how an african that was also albino still would've ended up enslaved
Again you're trying to conflate things which are not the same (war captives and society-wide anti-Blackness actualizing in dehumanization and chattel enslavement. )
and using weak "seems obvious" "can't imagine" arguments to do it.
If a captured ship had white and non-white non-muslims on it, do you imagine only the white non-muslims would be enslaved and everyone else let go?
No, because being oppressed while being white is not being oppressed for being white.
Further, your comment about albinism proves you understand race to be a social construct.
where are you getting "war captives"?
i imagine instances probably occurred both ways
do you think a captured ship with only black non-muslims on it would've been captured in the first place?
do you think a coastal settlement with a population of only black non-muslims would've been raided for slaves?
if race didn't exist, american chattel slavery still would've done, because the social construct is invented afterwards to justify the act
the same appears to be true here, just with "non-muslim" being the back-engineered justification
You don't consider Barbary raids an act of war?
Capitalize Black. And "Yes." on both counts.
You can't change race by reciting The Shahada.
And irrespective anything you have said white people have never been oppressed for being white; the original assertion which started this discussion that is only tangentially related to an OP about women excluding men from an art exhibit (they didn't want to go to anyway) as performance art.
assuming i did, declaring war just so you can capture whites to sell as slaves seems kind of oppress-y to me
given that the point of contention here is whether or not it was ultimately because they were white or because they were non-muslim, i'm not sure what point you're trying to make by re-classifying piracy as an act of war?
i didn't use any capital letters in my response, including on "muslim" which you'd capitalize for the same reasons you're arguing to capitalize "black"
also, your linked source says to capitalize "white", which you've done at no point so far
i feel like we've hit bedrock then
i'm not sure how to convince you that pirate raids that went all the way to iceland just to avoid "muslims" probably wouldn't raid a settlement consisting of black non-muslims
i feel like you're intentionally missing my point here
you restating a thing doesn't make that thing true though...?
not really sure there's much point in going on further with this since it seems like we have pretty different reads on the topic at hand that aren't going to be brought into alignment through further discussion
Where are you getting the were targeted for being white and not for being targets of opportunity?
It remains true whether or not I restate it, Was restated for you benefit since you seem to be willfully ignoring it.
Where are you getting that? You seem to be working backwards from wanting white people to have been oppressed.
Arabs absolutely enslaved Black Africans. Any Europeans who found themselves enslaved by Barbary pirates were not targeted or oppressed for being white (as has never happened to anyone, ever); some of the Barbary pirates were European.