British Library’s chief librarian ‘said racism is the creation of white people’

Watch
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#1
I'd have thought the 'Chief Librarian of the British Library' would be somewhat more historically literate than this but alas.



In her message to staff, Ms Jolly is reported to have said: ‘I think, as I have said before, that we need to make sure some white colleagues are involved because racism is a creation of white people.’


https://metro.co.uk/2020/08/31/briti...ople-13200689/
1
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 weeks ago
#2
I'm speechless.
0
reply
Occitanie
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 weeks ago
#3
If we look at racism entirely through a Western lens, then you could argue it is a ‘white’ construct, but I do find it a lazy way of thinking.

For example, this whole idea of racism = power + prejudice is absurd.
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 weeks ago
#4
It kind of is, though? If we take Wikipedia's definition of racism:

"... the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another."

It's pretty much indisputable that the intellectual foundations of racism originated in the modern West.
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by DiddyDec)
I'm speechless.
I just wish these so called pillars of the community would be speechless instead of spouting such demonstrable claptrap.

I must say though, Rod Liddle (such as he is) did have a few amusing words to say on it in his column this week :lol:
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
It kind of is, though? If we take Wikipedia's definition of racism:

"... the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another."

It's pretty much indisputable that the intellectual foundations of racism originated in the modern West.
I would humbly submit that Wikipedias definition is wholly fault on the matter, especially if we look at but a simple dictionary definition of it.
Racial theory, which wiki seems to be talking about, might well be a western construct (although given the Celestials, Arabs, Persians et al. all held/hold their own similar views on superiority over the 'red devils'..) However it is patently absurd to argue that racism as a whole is but another construct of Caucasians. Not least of all due to its prevalence amongst every single race, bar none.
1
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by Napp)
I would humbly submit that Wikipedias definition is wholly fault on the matter, especially if we look at but a simple dictionary definition of it.
Racial theory, which wiki seems to be talking about, might well be a western construct (although given the Celestials, Arabs, Persians et al. all held/hold their own similar views on superiority over the 'red devils'..) However it is patently absurd to argue that racism as a whole is but another construct of Caucasians. Not least of all due to its prevalence amongst every single race, bar none.

Well, the dictionary should never be depended on for explaining complex concepts, but here's the Collins definition:

"Racism is the belief that people of some races are inferior to others, and the behaviour which is the result of this belief. Racism also refers to the aspects of a society which prevent people of some racial groups from having the same privileges and opportunities as people from other races."

It's not a million miles away from the Wiki definition, except - and I suspect the vast majority of dictionaries will do the same - it relies on a definition of 'race' that is itself derived from the racial theory that the Wikipedia article is concerned with. The two aren't really separable.
0
reply
Occitanie
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
It kind of is, though? If we take Wikipedia's definition of racism:

"... the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another."

It's pretty much indisputable that the intellectual foundations of racism originated in the modern West.
Can you expand on ‘intellectual foundations of racism’?


Where does ‘modern West’ begin?
1
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
Well, the dictionary should never be depended on for explaining complex concepts, but here's the Collins definition:

"Racism is the belief that people of some races are inferior to others, and the behaviour which is the result of this belief. Racism also refers to the aspects of a society which prevent people of some racial groups from having the same privileges and opportunities as people from other races."

It's not a million miles away from the Wiki definition, except - and I suspect the vast majority of dictionaries will do the same - it relies on a definition of 'race' that is itself derived from the racial theory that the Wikipedia article is concerned with. The two aren't really separable.
Probably more so than wiki in such cases though.
Indeed, i fail to see how that can plausibly be laid at the feet of Europeans though. As I have said, and any decent history textbook as well for that matter, racism is dates from time immemorial (simply ask the Jews on the matter).
Hmmm yes and no to the last bit. Whilst they may intersect at certain bits they are distinctly separate in this instance. It being demonstrable claptrap to say that Europeans invented the idea of finding "others" beneath them. Colonialism might well have entrenched it in the European mold but that doesnt make the idea of racism, in of itself, eo ipso European.
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by Occitanie)
Can you expand on ‘intellectual foundations of racism’?


Where does ‘modern West’ begin?
The idea that race is an inheritable, scientific reality by which humans can be meaningfully categorised largely according to their physical characteristics.

Probably with the age of imperialism. It's not important to be exact, the point is 'racism' is a relatively recent idea.
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by Napp)
Probably more so than wiki in such cases though.
Indeed, i fail to see how that can plausibly be laid at the feet of Europeans though. As I have said, and any decent history textbook as well for that matter, racism is dates from time immemorial (simply ask the Jews on the matter).
Hmmm yes and no to the last bit. Whilst they may intersect at certain bits they are distinctly separate in this instance. It being demonstrable claptrap to say that Europeans invented the idea of finding "others" beneath them. Colonialism might well have entrenched it in the European mold but that doesnt make the idea of racism, in of itself, eo ipso European.
You're talking about prejudice. Nobody would contend that the West invented that (though nobody else quite weaponised it as effectively, or institutionalised it so completely). Medieval Jews, to use your example, were victimised because of their religion - not for anything that was seen as inherent to the individual. There is no evidence, for example, that in medieval Spain converted Jews or Muslims and their decedents were treated any differently to other Christians. This changes in the Early Modern period with the Spanish Inquisition which some argue represents the very beginnings of modern racism.
Last edited by Captain Haddock; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
Iñigo de Loyola
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
There is no evidence, for example, that in medieval Spain converted Jews or Muslims and their decedents were treated any differently to other Christians.
”Conversos did not enjoy legal equality. Alfonso VII prohibited the "recently converted" from holding office in Toledo. They had supporters and bitter opponents in the Christian secular of general acceptance, yet they became targets of occasional pogroms during times of social tension (as during an epidemic and after an earthquake). They were subject to the Spanish and Portuguese inquisitions.” - the Wikipedia article on conversos.
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 weeks ago
#13
The irony is that 'white' society has come the closest in human history to creating equality among different groups..

If I asked for a list of societies that were more tolerant of different groups than modern day western Europe, I doubt anyone could list more than a handful, and most of those would likely be 'tolerant for their time' rather than absolutely more tolerant than now.

If I asked for a list of societies that hated other groups, whether they be racially, religiously, or ideologically different, that pre-existed modern western society, you could create a list of hundreds.

The arguement that they didn't have the conceptualization of race, therefor even though they were murdering, killing and subjugating other people on the bases of their race, it wasn't 'racist' - holds no water with me. Its as useless an idea as trying to redefine racism to mean systemic racism, and prejudice to mean racism. Its tricky with terminology to steal the power that the language has. What is a more powerful statement than "Your racial group, invented racism" - to any fair and objective person, that claim in itself is more than a little racist. To blame one racial group for something that is objectively present in all racial groups pre-20th century, is very racist.

I'm sat in China at the moment, and believe me, they were persecuting each other because of the different racial groups long long before western society was even suckling on the tit of 'modernity'
3
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by Iñigo de Loyola)
”Conversos did not enjoy legal equality. Alfonso VII prohibited the "recently converted" from holding office in Toledo. They had supporters and bitter opponents in the Christian secular of general acceptance, yet they became targets of occasional pogroms during times of social tension (as during an epidemic and after an earthquake). They were subject to the Spanish and Portuguese inquisitions.” - the Wikipedia article on conversos.
*frantically flicks through books*

Fair enough, the passage I was thinking of specifically only refers to the descendants of Muslims. But still, the idea that 'otherness' is something carried in the blood and inherited at birth, rather than something tied to religious practice, is a later idea.
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
Its as useless an idea as trying to redefine racism to mean systemic racism, and prejudice to mean racism.
But then what is 'racism'? To answer that question you'd first have to define 'race', and I'd argue that any workable definition that lines up with modern usage of the word would end up depending on concepts introduced by Western scientific racism. It's distinct from tribalism, religion, ideology and even ethnicity - so doesn't it deserve to be considered on its own terms?
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
But then what is 'racism'? To answer that question you'd first have to define 'race', and I'd argue that any workable definition that lines up with modern usage of the word would end up depending on concepts introduced by Western scientific racism. It's distinct from tribalism, religion, ideology and even ethnicity - so doesn't it deserve to be considered on its own terms?
For me, race is distinctly physical, whereas ethnicity is cultural. The debate around whether the concept of race should even exist due to how problematic it is to try and define distinct racial groups is an interesting one, but for a workable definition, I'm going to use it to mean distinct physically different groups of humans.

In terms of your other definitions, its distinct from them because:

Tribalism - is just problems based on tribes, but tribes can be defined by many characteristics, this could or could not include race/religion ethnicity etc.

Ethnicity - this for me, can contain small physical differences, but is mostly cultural in nature.

Ideology and religion are obviously different,

But the key thing for me, is that all group conflict can be a mixture of some or many of these factors. For example, staying local to where I am at the moment, conflict between the Manchu + Han people in China is an ethnic conflict, not a racial one.. but persecution of Persians immigrants by the mongols, was racial and ethnic. Conflict between th Han and the Uyghur, is both ethnic and religiously motivated. etc. You can go back through history and find examples of combinations of all types of prejudice, including racial prejudice.

The fact that we defined it, and tried to justify it with science, and created the modern concept of racism doesn't mean that what existed before it was defined wasn't racism. It just means it wasn't understood as such. A child who doesn't know the concept for an action they take, is still taking the action, even if they aren't able to explain it using the same language or ideology of an adult etc. (another example would be, was a man, in ancient times, sleeping with a girl who was 11 years old, rape? Back then it wasn't, and the modern definition/concepts surrounding rape didn't exist for a very long time etc. but I would still say it was rape.)

For example, a quick google brings up this; https://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...o-9603632.html

Would either side in the war have defined it as racist, or even been aware of the concept of race? No.. but to the best of the researchers knowledge, they were killing another group based on their race. Its thought they wouldn't have been able to communicate with each other, so the idea of it being based on ideology seems less likely then it being based on racial (physical) differences, and the desperation of competing for resources. If they are correct, then its a very ancient example of racism, by our modern definition, far far before any modern western civilization.
1
reply
Iñigo de Loyola
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
*frantically flicks through books*

Fair enough, the passage I was thinking of specifically only refers to the descendants of Muslims. But still, the idea that 'otherness' is something carried in the blood and inherited at birth, rather than something tied to religious practice, is a later idea.
Limpieza de sangre applied to Muslim converts as well, IIRC.
0
reply
Occitanie
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
For me, race is distinctly physical, whereas ethnicity is cultural. The debate around whether the concept of race should even exist due to how problematic it is to try and define distinct racial groups is an interesting one, but for a workable definition, I'm going to use it to mean distinct physically different groups of humans.

In terms of your other definitions, its distinct from them because:

Tribalism - is just problems based on tribes, but tribes can be defined by many characteristics, this could or could not include race/religion ethnicity etc.

Ethnicity - this for me, can contain small physical differences, but is mostly cultural in nature.

Ideology and religion are obviously different,

But the key thing for me, is that all group conflict can be a mixture of some or many of these factors. For example, staying local to where I am at the moment, conflict between the Manchu + Han people in China is an ethnic conflict, not a racial one.. but persecution of Persians immigrants by the mongols, was racial and ethnic. Conflict between th Han and the Uyghur, is both ethnic and religiously motivated. etc. You can go back through history and find examples of combinations of all types of prejudice, including racial prejudice.

The fact that we defined it, and tried to justify it with science, and created the modern concept of racism doesn't mean that what existed before it was defined wasn't racism. It just means it wasn't understood as such. A child who doesn't know the concept for an action they take, is still taking the action, even if they aren't able to explain it using the same language or ideology of an adult etc. (another example would be, was a man, in ancient times, sleeping with a girl who was 11 years old, rape? Back then it wasn't, and the modern definition/concepts surrounding rape didn't exist for a very long time etc. but I would still say it was rape.)

For example, a quick google brings up this; https://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...o-9603632.html

Would either side in the war have defined it as racist, or even been aware of the concept of race? No.. but to the best of the researchers knowledge, they were killing another group based on their race. Its thought they wouldn't have been able to communicate with each other, so the idea of it being based on ideology seems less likely then it being based on racial (physical) differences, and the desperation of competing for resources. If they are correct, then its a very ancient example of racism, by our modern definition, far far before any modern western civilization.
This is absolutely spot on.
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
For me, race is distinctly physical, whereas ethnicity is cultural. The debate around whether the concept of race should even exist due to how problematic it is to try and define distinct racial groups is an interesting one, but for a workable definition, I'm going to use it to mean distinct physically different groups of humans.

In terms of your other definitions, its distinct from them because:

Tribalism - is just problems based on tribes, but tribes can be defined by many characteristics, this could or could not include race/religion ethnicity etc.

Ethnicity - this for me, can contain small physical differences, but is mostly cultural in nature.

Ideology and religion are obviously different,

But the key thing for me, is that all group conflict can be a mixture of some or many of these factors. For example, staying local to where I am at the moment, conflict between the Manchu + Han people in China is an ethnic conflict, not a racial one.. but persecution of Persians immigrants by the mongols, was racial and ethnic. Conflict between th Han and the Uyghur, is both ethnic and religiously motivated. etc. You can go back through history and find examples of combinations of all types of prejudice, including racial prejudice.

The fact that we defined it, and tried to justify it with science, and created the modern concept of racism doesn't mean that what existed before it was defined wasn't racism. It just means it wasn't understood as such. A child who doesn't know the concept for an action they take, is still taking the action, even if they aren't able to explain it using the same language or ideology of an adult etc. (another example would be, was a man, in ancient times, sleeping with a girl who was 11 years old, rape? Back then it wasn't, and the modern definition/concepts surrounding rape didn't exist for a very long time etc. but I would still say it was rape.)

For example, a quick google brings up this; https://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...o-9603632.html

Would either side in the war have defined it as racist, or even been aware of the concept of race? No.. but to the best of the researchers knowledge, they were killing another group based on their race. Its thought they wouldn't have been able to communicate with each other, so the idea of it being based on ideology seems less likely then it being based on racial (physical) differences, and the desperation of competing for resources. If they are correct, then its a very ancient example of racism, by our modern definition, far far before any modern western civilization.
I hear what you're saying, but to me the 'scientific' component is a, if not the, defining feature of modern racism. Even today the vast majority of the general population more or less accept the scientific reality of 'races', along divisions that roughly correspond to those set out in 19th century pseudo-science. The phrase 'inventing racism' perhaps overstates things a bit but I don't think it's unreasonable to say that contemporary ideas about race and racism are largely rooted in the scientific racism of the 18th-19th centuries

(Original post by Iñigo de Loyola)
Limpieza de sangre applied to Muslim converts as well, IIRC.
Indeed it was, that's the 'later idea' I was referring to, if that wasn't clear.
0
reply
Punchan antifa
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 weeks ago
#20
When media, poltiicans and academia talk of racism.. they mean White racism.. what is racism for White people, does not APPLY TO ANY OTHER GROUP

Just think about that for a second..

It's purely an attack on anyone White. It's their way to demonise Whites, to the point of death.. genocide. Marxist engineered genocide.

Of course most support it.. while then calling us the racists for resisting it.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you confident you could find support for your mental health if you needed it in COVID-19?

Yes (91)
22.03%
No (322)
77.97%

Watched Threads

View All