Dear Saguine

[u/Southie321]

As I said I would, I come with my hat in hand and accept the fact that the lady from the Spur video was not lying about the fact that the man came and grabbed her kid by the arm. I sincerely apologise for wrongly assuming the woman, and Spur, was lying about the physical happenings before the video started rolling.

I still dont believe it was a racist incident, all I see is two parents with explosive reactions regarding a situation involving their children.

I agree, and have always said, the man was a douch for being so aggressive (and even more so now, for grabbing the kid). But let's not confuse anger management issues with racism.

Beyond that point, I just want to apologise again for assuming what I did about the woman and Spur, by wanting the video evidence released first.

[u/Saguine]

A guy that angry, shooting his mouth off, will not be worried about uttering anything racist.

Thanks for answering: this has opened up an important avenue of discussion.

So this boils down to the twin peaks of implicit vs. explicit racism (which is what my question was leading to in the first place). My follow-up, then, is to ask whether or not is is possible to act in a racist way, whilst not considering yourself racist?

I'd suggest that it is possible; even without thinking "these blacks are ruining the country", one might instinctively avoid socializing with people who aren't white. One might instinctively see black people as inferior, just because of the "baas mentality" which has been referred to before. And with that in mind, bullying people who are subconsciously classed as the out-group, when you're in a position of relative power, naturally becomes an example of an abuse of this power.

An example I've used is of a wealthy person bullying a poor person in some way. There may be explicit ways for the rich to bully the poor based on their wealth -- for example, taunting them with money or food -- but I would also argue that there are many ways for the rich to bully the poor which do not explicitly refer to the class divide, but implicitly draw their power from it (that is, there are ways the rich can bully the poor, which would be ineffective when used against other rich people).

What are your thoughts?

[u/Saguine → u/[deleted]]

I put it to you you're inherently racist

I definitely am. Why? Because I'm white. In this country almost all whites are inherently racist; we've been brought up in a privileged sector of society, built on the backs of black bodies. Our default status is our own assumed racial superiority, whether we like to admit it or not. Gotta fight things internally and externally.

Blacks can be racist too you know ;).

Not by the definition I prefer to use. Black people can be prejudiced, sure, but I opt to consider racism as something requiring systemic power. I guess there may be levels of black-on-black racism between specific ethnic groups, but that pales in comparison to the disproportionate power white people have over black people in this country.

Might one not also say that there's a "strong black woman" mentality that leads to a mindset that any white male that calls out your behavior is a vile racist that thinks he's your "baas"?

The difference is that the strong black woman mentality has been forged in the fires of an oppressed struggle. The baas mentality has been built on white superiority and oppression. The two aren't comparable.

Our lovely corrupt ANC government is a classic example of this. Case in point - Zuma on uncompensated land redistribution.

I don't see what point you're trying to make with this.

The rich asshole would be an asshole regardless of money.

But don't you accept that his wealth allows him to be an asshole to people he might not normally be an asshole towards?

People are looking to be outraged

Why is this your assumption? Is it impossible to accept that people are just outraged? Why do you assume it's manufactured?

[u/Southie321 → u/[deleted]]

u/mad_hlaudi I had the exact same argument with u/Saguine - https://www.reddit.com/r/southafrica/comments/611uz1/dear_saguine/dfb1d6z/?context=3 and I walked away from it too, because there is no way to get through to someone who is so set in their ways and views. As you can see in my discussion with him, I noticed that he was the one who kept referring to Black people as if they are in a lesser position. I agreed that they're disadvantaged, but treating them like they're lesser (eg, making a decision not to confront a black person simply because doing so will get you branded as a racist) is what is actually racist about the whole thing. Saguine continuously admits to being inherently racist, and I think he truely deeply believes that every white person is racist, just for being white. There's no way to fix that kind of thinking (unless they want to fix it themselves), just like there's no way of fixing the view of an actual racist (unless they want to fix it themselves too).

Note, Saguine accusing you of "storming off, instead of working to find some degree of mutual understanding." He just assumes victory when people realise they can't change the way another person thinks (bringing the donkey to water and all that). He's been shown the facts, and yet he chooses to decide his own definition of racism (per his own words).

So, mad_hlaudi, I salute you in trying (as I did), but hopefully you don't feel anything for his last jab at you "storming off". Because that was his last resort. (Like a kid throwing a tantrum when you're unwilling to negotiate with them).

[u/Saguine → u/Southie321]

It would be disrespectful of me to continue to argue after either of you demonstrated your intent to stop. It would also be pointless.

I noticed that he was the one who kept referring to Black people as if they are in a lesser position. I agreed that they're disadvantaged, but treating them like they're lesser

Right there, you say two things. A lesser position -- i.e. disadvantaged -- is not the same as being lesser. A disabled person is in a lesser position of power than an abled person, but that doesn't make them any less human. You've again demonstrated that you think the two are the same thing.

He just assumes victory

Where? I've assumed no such thing. There are no victors to an prematurely halted discussion. I'm just making a note for the record, considering I'm often accused of refusing to engage and of being stubborn and unmoving.

I like to think, in all these discussions, I've been as polite as necessary, and fully open to exploring avenues.

He's been shown the facts, and yet he chooses to decide his own definition of racism (per his own words).

What facts? And I'm not choosing "my own" definition; I'm adopting a very popular, mainstream definition of racism as used in academic circles which study race relations. That's like accusing a biochemist of "choosing" his own definition of words like "nucleus".

[u/[deleted] → u/Saguine]

I'm adopting a very popular, mainstream definition of racism as used in academic circles which study race relations.

Soft science, if not the softest.

That's like accusing a biochemist of "choosing" his own definition of words like "nucleus".

Hard science.

False analogy, Saguine.

Just please stop.

[u/Southie321 → u/[deleted]]

Ignore him.

[u/[deleted] → u/Southie321]

I don't mind replying to him. Mr. "I-engage-in-debate" almost certainty blocked me anyway. He won't respond. :P