Why do people conflate racism with wanting efficient immigration policies?

[Jacpierre]

How do you figure that?

He figures because he has white guilt.

[NineSpine]

It's not racism. "Irish" isn't a race. You can't call everything you don't like "racism".

Your modern conception of whiteness and the racial divisions are not a reflection of the 19th century. Race and ethnicity are tightly intertwined concepts, and ethnic discrimination is generally categorized as racism even if it contains no explicitly racial dimensions. That's why we don't have an "ism" word for ethnic discrimination. Also, defending bigotry as being incorrectly categorized as the wrong kind of bigotry isn't a terribly effective defense.

[Kraenen]

Except that's wrong. At the time people were actually arguing and saying Irish people were not whites. Its only more recently that the term white has expanded to include all those of European heritage.

So why do anti-racists always say "white people in this country have never 'X'" this and that, "white privilege" etc... When whites have suffered racism and lack this very privilege?

[NineSpine]

No, this is literally their argument. "You have white skin, your people never suffered from racism."

it really is as simple as that for most anti racists.

Look, I live much of my life in academia, where the worst of that kind of stuff is, so I get where you are coming from, but that's still an absurd and ridiculous strawman.

[Gizmatix]

No one said Irish weren't white. There very few people in the world more "white". For Flip's sake, you are completely making up crap and spewing lies to try to win the internet.

Actually the point being made was that when Irish immigration was at it's height, all your handwaving, 'control immigration' arguments were made about the Irish.. same again with the Jews, trying to escape the Nazis.

All Horses in the USA, are also immigrants.. so Ghostcrawler says you ain't getting that pony.

[Queen of Hamsters]

My wish for better policies in regards to immigration stems from me wanting people that come here to fare well, not be placed far away from our major cities and forgotten about so they can line pockets of fat cats who cut corners in expenses for the refugees, like forcing them to go buy diapers and maxi pads on their own..

I've still been called a racist.

[NineSpine]

So why do anti-racists always say "white people in this country have never 'X'" this and that, "white privilege" etc... When whites have suffered racism and lack this very privilege?

You simply misunderstand what the term privilege means. It just means that one group, on average, has it easier than another group, on average, at a particular point in time. That's it. It's objectively real.

[Ragedaug]

Except that's wrong. At the time people were actually arguing and saying Irish people were not whites. Its only more recently that the term white has expanded to include all those of European heritage.

This is what the British used to propagandize why they subjugated and dehumanized the Irish. That had been doing it for centuries before this propaganda was developed as well. The British also hated the French for a while (some probably still do). It's still not racism.

[NineSpine]

Actually the point being made was that when Irish immigration was at it's height, all your handwaving, 'control immigration' arguments were made about the Irish.. same again with the Jews, trying to escape the Nazis.

All Horses in the USA, are also immigrants.. so Ghostcrawler says you ain't getting that pony.

When we turned all those Jewish refugees away, it TOTALLY wasn't racist.

[Kraenen]

Look, I live much of my life in academia, where the worst of that kind of stuff is, so I get where you are coming from, but that's still an absurd and ridiculous strawman.

Which is probably the problem. You see the more eloquent and complex arguments. You see all the academia, with references and taxonomies and special language, etc... You pay less attention to what people say and believe on the ground level. Those are the majority of people. They really do think with such a broad brush as "white skinned people have always had it good"

[Ragedaug]

Actually the point being made was that when Irish immigration was at it's height, all your handwaving, 'control immigration' arguments were made about the Irish.. same again with the Jews, trying to escape the Nazis.

All Horses in the USA, are also immigrants.. so Ghostcrawler says you ain't getting that pony.

I think we are saying the same thing.

[Kalis]

Because for most people immigration is not that big of an issue. Yes it is one but not the biggest, and not their over-riding concern. For racists however it is their over-riding concern and its what drives their votes. This is why the discussion on tightening immigration is loudly driven by racists, and that ends up causing those who are not racists but want tighter immigration control to be mixed in with the racists.

If I remember correctly the loudest voice on immigration in the UK used to be the BNP and it was chock full of racists, then when UKIP sprung up the BNP died as a party. Note too that UKIP is now the loudest political voice in the UK on immigration. So its pretty obvious all the BNP racists moved over to UKIP. That's not to say all UKIP people are racists but because they have a large contingent of them in the party they all get tarred by association.

BNP racists did not move over to UKIP, the BNP died when Nick Griffin went on Question Time and people heard what he had to say. And UKIP are about EU immigration, which is primarily white immigration, so you are effectively saying that UKIP are anti-white racists.

Plus are you calling virtually all of the Conservative Party supporters racist, including me, for wanting a stricter and more efficient immigration policy? You are going to need some staggering proof of that.

Your argument is riddled with holes.

[Underverse]

Did it ever occur to you that diversity may be one of the reasons the West has excelled past isolationist countries?

I don't think you have the data to make this claim. It's possible, but I don't see diversity driving China's rapid rise to power, for example.

[Themius]

This is what the British used to propagandize why they subjugated and dehumanized the Irish. That had been doing it for centuries before this propaganda was developed as well. The British also hated the French for a while (some probably still do). It's still not racism.

"The British people saw themselves as another race and treated other whites as another white race in order to justify their ill treatment and hate but it's totally not racist because now a couple hundred years later we view them all as white even though back then. That wasn't the case. "

[Kraenen]

You simply misunderstand what the term privilege means. It just means that one group, on average, has it easier than another group, on average, at a particular point in time. That's it. It's objectively real.

That's actually not what privilege means.

a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people

Even if it meant that - you couldn't apply it to white people as a group.

[NineSpine]

This is what the British used to propagandize why they subjugated and dehumanized the Irish. That had been doing it for centuries before this propaganda was developed as well. The British also hated the French for a while (some probably still do). It's still not racism.

Ethnic discrimination is racism. This has been established for a long time now. The concepts are not delineated, and even the UN charter explicitly considers ethnic discrimination to be racism, as does US law.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually that's not what privilege means.

Even if it meant that - you couldn't apply it to white people as a group.

If white people have advantages over black people on average, then that definition would absolutely apply, and that is EXACTLY what I said.

[Kraenen]

If white people have advantages over black people on average, then that definition would absolutely apply, and that is EXACTLY what I said.

No, you don't know the difference between on average some advantages, versus what I bolded: available only to a particular person or group of people

[Ragedaug]

Your modern conception of whiteness and the racial divisions are not a reflection of the 19th century. Race and ethnicity are tightly intertwined concepts, and ethnic discrimination is generally categorized as racism even if it contains no explicitly racial dimensions. That's why we don't have an "ism" word for ethnic discrimination. Also, defending bigotry as being incorrectly categorized as the wrong kind of bigotry isn't a terribly effective defense.

You're wrong. Hatred has historically run along cultural lines. People tend to like the company of those who agree with them and act like them. So while there are some who hate simply on the lines of what you look like, the vast majority of hate in the world is because "you disagree with me".

Bigotry is always wrong. Trying to define certain scenarios where bigotry is 'wronger' is when you find your self defending your own personal brand of bigotry.

[NineSpine]

I don't think you have the data to make this claim. It's possible, but I don't see diversity driving China's rapid rise to power, for example.

You don't think there is data showing that isolationism doesn't work as well as normalized relations? Really?

- - - Updated - - -

You're wrong. Hatred has historically run along cultural lines. People tend to like the company of those who agree with them and act like them. So while there are some who hate simply on the lines of what you look like, the vast majority of hate in the world is because "you disagree with me".

You don't see how "you disagree with me" may be different from depicting the Irish as subhuman barbarians?

[Kraenen]

You don't think there is data showing that isolationism doesn't work as well as normalized relations? Really?

Why would you conflate mass immigration and ethnic diversity with "normalized relations"?