Racism, Law, & Politics (Race Part 1) | Philosophy Tube
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ม.ค. 2016
- Time for some postcolonial philosophy: let’s look at the concepts of race and racism and how they fit into law and politics.
Part 2: tinyurl.com/gulhspc
Subscribe! tinyurl.com/pr99a46
Patreon: / philosophytube
Audible: www.audibletrial.com/Philosoph...
FAQ: / 460163027465168
Facebook: PhilosophyTu...
Twitter: @PhilosophyTube
Email: ollysphilosophychannel@gmail.com
Google+: google.com/+thephilosophytube
realphilosophytube.tumblr.com
Recommended Reading:
Falguni Sheth, “Toward a Political Philosophy of Race”
Foucault, ‘Society Must be Defended,’ and ‘Discipline and Punish
muslimreverie.wordpress.com
If you or your organisation would like to financially support Philosophy Tube in distributing philosophical knowledge to those who might not otherwise have access to it in exchange for credits on the show, please get in touch!
Music: ‘My Little Medley,’ ‘Chiptune Anthem One,’
‘The Day I Die - Remastered’ by TechnoAxe - tinyurl.com/kkrsfgg
Title Animation by Amitai Angor AA VFX - / dvdangor2011
Any copyrighted material should fall under fair use for educational purposes or commentary, but if you are a copyright holder and believe your material has been used unfairly please get in touch with us and we will be happy to discuss it. - บันเทิง
You might be interested in knowing that within the realm of Anthropology, we deem race as a "folk taxonomy."
One of the issues with race is that it's arbitrary, inaccurate, and plays off of misconceptions.
For instance, in anthropology we use "ancestry" in the place of race in most contexts. But we recognize that culturally people use phenotypes attributed to specific ancestral groups to place people in regionalize racial categories.
In the United States, having the slightest amount of African ancestry that allows specific phenotypes to be present, more often than not, will have you immediately associated with being "black." In contrast, nations like the Dominican Republic will associate individuals with European ancestry and the phenotypes to influence that look, will more often than not have you be associated with being "White."
We recognize that race is real in the sense that it is an existing construct that is used. But also make an effort to establish the fact that it is not a biological classification, rather a cultural classification based off of interpreting biology and more specifically phenotypes.
Great video, have a good one Olly.
+Think Fact Awesome! That's really interesting to know, thanks Dale!
"an existing construct that is used" The same could be said for numerous gods.
I remember feeling underwhelmed by some of the major "big reveals" of disciplines like critical race theory, queer theory, feminism, and post modernism as I had already reached similar realizations in a much more organic feeling manner whilst attending a Comparative Culture Anthropology class.
Phenotypically the hapsburgs where considered "white". In actuality they where a discreet sect of inbreeds with little to do with "white" people in general. That's "folks" for ya.
@@booboodadfool8015 the Hapsburgs being their own off brand ethnicity in europe due to years of inbreeding was something i've never expected to read, but by the gods, it is funny as f*ck
One of the BEST, if not THE BEST explanation of Professor Sheth's book on philosophy of race. I read that book a couple of years ago, and even though I found some new challenging ideas, I clearly didn't understood it back then completely. Kudos to you for explaining it with real world events. Keep doing the good work. Peace
+A T.Khan my pleasure! I loved the book too!
I too am understanding with much greater clarity my uni content on sovereignty, whiteness, and how I may structure my instinctual hatred of racism and bigotry.
For this topic you are too human, too kind, too intelligent. The internet will punish you for these qualities. Hence the down voting.
+lovingboarding Not as much as they'd punish me if I wasn't a white cis atheist guy though, and that's why I thought it was important to use that platform to boost these ideas.
+Philosophy Tube
that's totally reasonable. frankly I think the people who abuse people over the internet aren't exactly in a mental space to change their opinions anyway. Plus, I find it pretty easy as a white cis male to take abuse online in general.
I've known people who are both.
lovingboarding very true, brilliant video.
The accuracy of this comment has aged poorly, thankfully.
Clearly the number of people willing to support Olly outweighs the number willing to abuse him.
Dude you've once again made me question everything I thought obvious and unquestionabe about this issue... Goddammit.
This guy's smart.
Gal*
@@camalinthewind5812 dangit, you did it first
@@alexsch2514 is s/he a trans? I thought it was more of a drag type situation, as he comes back and forth. Am I just watching the videos in non chronological order
@@doaimanariroll5121 she's a trans woman. came out a couple months ago.
@@doaimanariroll5121 she's trans. Watch her coming out vid "identity". Her actual name's abigail.
I've tried to explain all of this to people online before and it's just a shitshow every time. Guess I better tear up my Sociology degree cause this comment section totes rekt everything I studied.
+Chris x The fact that you have a bullshit degree is why they probably don't listen to you.
@@Luxuriies Yeah, biology is superior in every way, it can explain all sociological behavior. Sociology is solely based off of hypothesis.
@@nike5142 wut
@@nike5142 Chemistry is superior in every way, it can explain all biological behaviour.
@@jeppel1972 Physics is the ultimate science.
I've heard the "race as power dichotomy" idea several times before but this was a great, nitty gritty explanation of how that idea works and where it comes from.
I'm reminded of the way we construct gender, how patriarchy simultaneously, creates, perpetuates and enforces masculine ideals, drawing lines that, when looked at objectively (or at least as objectively as possible) are pretty much arbitrary
Great great video
To those out there not paying attention, the argument isn’t that people suddenly sprout a new skin colour when it’s politically useful. The idea that there are visible biological differences between humans doesn’t even come into it; it’s an underlying assumption. The argument is that the politicised meaning of a physical or otherwise distinguishing trait is constructed by sovereign power for its own benefit, *not* that these traits are invisible or nonexistent beforehand. So if you're going to argue against this, you have to argue against this as a process or cause for politicisation. Unless you’re about to say one of the following.
If you’re going to tell me that racism is based on statistical evidence, and that certain groups of people are more likely to do certain things for whatever reason, I want you to stop and think about how statistics are made and how they get to the people who use them to discriminate against people. Statistics aren’t pure numbers that are beamed into people’s heads, and experiences don’t relate to the statistical average. Statistics are put to the service of appearances, and appearances can be manipulated, faked and forged.
And for those saying tribalism is the cause, I’m not disagreeing with you. Because that’s what it means to appear unruly.
For those saying that racism is older than Liberalism, tell me one thing he says in the video about the process of Racialisation that is exclusive to liberal societies. Not examples, not used for context or clarity, but about the process itself.
Or better yet, explain how this doesn't apply to liberalism, or how this isn't useful for discussing racism in liberal societies.
Lastly, the purpose of all this is to provide a *useful* definition of racism. If your counter-argument doesn’t address whether or not this definition can be constructively *used*, then you’ve missed the point entirely.
Sorry for editing again, but I want to keep it all in one place -
Current Definition People: Why is the current definition useful, meaningful, and the only possible definition? Like, even if we assume that the current definition is well-defined and is useful, why should I care when I have this one. I find this new one quite useful. Why is your definition better?
Also (and I hate that I have to say this) white people need to check their privilege and stop making it all about themselves. The proposed definition is about in-power groups and out-power groups, not whites and non-whites. *This isn't about you*. You can argue about how it defines and implements ideas of power, but stop complaining that it isn't pro-white enough.
+Ulexar ^This
+Ulexar You don't have a useful definition if it only deals with racism in liberal societies and doesn't address racism originating among the have-nots. All you have is a feeling of being part of some pseudo-Marxist class struggle and the right to portray white men as "toxic masculinity" savages.
Compare this to the current definitions and tribal in-group/ out-group explanations. They work just fine in all cases and does not come with some tedious political baggage.
I mean, think about it. If you wanted to claim that the political powers of the west are covertly racists as a part of a "divide and conquer" strategy, you could proceed to do that without redefining a damn thing. All you had to do was produce some kind of proof.
+Mads Jakobsen So now I have proof that commenters don't watch the video or read the OP. Such useful.
1. Is it just liberal societies tho?
2. If it is, maybe a definition that deals with racism in liberal societies is useful for talking about racism in liberal societies?
3. Read the damn OP
4. I'm going to add this to the original post, but why is the current definition useful, meaningful, and the only possible definition? Like, even if we assume that the current definition is well-defined and is useful, why should I care when I have this one. I find this new one quite useful. Why is your definition better?
I'm also going to add to the OP that white people need to check their privilege and stop making it all about them. The proposed definition is about in-power groups and out-power groups, not whites and non-whites. You can argue about how it defines and implements these ideas, but stop complaining that it isn't pro-white enough.
+Philosophy Tube Thanks. I'm just sick of great videos with terrible comments' sections because the people who 'get it' don't ask questions answered in the video. That and people who think ideas are certain. Glad to know I wasn't off-base.
Ulexar It seems in general that you agree with me: you like the new definition because it allows you to tell white people (your out group) to shut up. And I agree, the old definitions and explanations does not allow this (without actual evidence), so for your agenda this "racism=power and I don't have any and you have" thing works just fine.
As to the rest, I can only repeat.
A) Racism occurs in all kinds of societies and in all kinds of social strata. A theory that does not address this is inferior to one that does.
B) The current definitions and explanations are sufficient. If, as is the claim here, racism is used as an instrument of power, or is generated by power, or is especially bad in combination with power, then you could show this without redefine anything. But you don't want to go through that. You want to redefine racism as racism+power, and when someone asks for evidence you want to say: "that's in the definition, dummy!" Because circular reasoning is the easiest kind of reasoning.
"begs the question" used correctly \o/
Quite a while ago I had a discussion with a friend about being racist to white people and I just threw the dictionary definition at her. She was talking about just this issue: you need to have the background of oppression and that sovereign power racialising in order to have racsim. I suspected it for a while, but now I realise that I was wrong. Good video, really concise and clear!
Just so you know, racism is not prejudice plus power because power is not a necessary prerequisite for racism to occur. Rather, power is used by people of a particular racist bent to impose their position on society and the law. You can still be racist without power, but your ability to have your racism be accepted and expressed in society will be significantly limited. Racism with power is a threat, but not a definition.
+xNightmareBeta they can discriminate against you for your race, but (based on the ideas expressed in this video) since they aren't in a position of sovereign power, and cant enforce their discrimination, they can't be racist (correct me if I didn't understand the video right).
Zane Millecchia You (and the video) still seem under the misunderstanding that power is somehow integral to the definition of racism. I'm arguing that that is not true, and that power actually influences the social presentation of racism. There is a difference between being racist while having the power to do something about it and being racist while lacking the power to do something about it. Racists with power are a greater threat to civil society than racists without power, but both groups are still racists. It is fallacious for someone to say that they can't be racist because they lack the power to act on racial prejudice, which is the argument described by the comment I was initially responding to.
That's absolutely true if one uses the dictionary or accepted definition of the word racism. I was commenting solely based on the ideas presented in the video.
+ExistentialOcto If Sheth's definition is taken to be true, then shouldn't creating a race (such as black people) by default the rest of the population has to be a different race (or races), thus the race "white" is created. If people discriminate against this social construct of "white people" then they are racist. Oppression is not necessary for racism, and we already have a word for it
This video is more relevant than ever in 2020
Fantastic levelheaded social commentary.
I just had to say that I love your stuff. I'm in upper secondary school right now and my Philosophy matriculation exam is coming up. Your content has been irreplaceable for my studying. Like I watch your video on a subject, read the book and I've gotten a new perspective to read from.
Just wanted to write a short love letter to you man. I love your content a huge amount.
I'VE NEVER HAD AN OPINION CHANGED BY A TH-cam VIDEO UNTIL JUST NOW!!! Okay so until now I've heard many people saying that only white people (in America) can be racist, and although I am a very liberal, anti-racism person, I've always said they were wrong, I'd quote the dictionary and say that, by definition, their argument was false. But this video really did lay out some arguments that I hadn't heard, or at least hadn't fully grasped. Thank you so much, now I get where everyone's coming from!
+Zane Millecchia From my understanding of Sheth's ideas, I still think it makes sense that you can be racist against the dominant group. By creating a race, the dominant group by default has to be categorized as a separate race. People can then attach stereotypes to this group, such as "white people are always discriminatory".
+Zane Millecchia - Dont jump the gun just yet. :) You're initial intuition serves you well as there are a quite a few holes in this argument by Sheth. Some of them have been pointed out in the comments by myself and others. I am honestly quite disappointed that Olly presented this line of argument without a proper critical analysis and discussion of the counter arguments.
You have to start watching better videos. But you're on the right way :)
+Zane Millecchia You were quoting the dictionary because that's what the words used to mean. He's trying to change the definition of the words, you have to be careful about that.
Porglit that's what I meant, I get that now, thank you!
To illustrate: I'm "black" because my enslaved ancestors shared a geographic origin with the enslaved people who killed their "masters" in Virginia.
I am a little torn, on one hand the argument seems sound, on the other hand it feels like it is just another marxist power struggle view on society which I am not very found of. So, I am not sure that it necessarily comes from positions of authority, but is more part of the tribalistic nature of humans that we always seem to find reasons to keep the ingroup of perceived peers small, and put everything that questions our views in the outgroups that we then vilify.
Milo Hempel I agree, power is mostly just the factor that lets people act on their prejudice and and bigotry, but it is not the source of it.
+Milo Hempel I think the argument works as long as you don't assume that only governments count as power (and thus other people of influence can create race) and you don't assume that once a race is created only the more dominant group can be racist.
I got the impression that it was Olly's idea that white people can't be racist, not Sheth's
+Delta X that's actually a really good point, I think I'm mostly with you there
I know this video is really old, but I wanted to comment on the "you cant be racist to white people" bit. The difference between how academics use it vs. how the common person uses it, much like the word "theory" in science, is obviously the core as you say. However, it seems to me a much more dangerous idea to play with. We have to change how we talk about not only racism, but discrimination. It seems like people treat the word discrimination much less severely than they do the word racism, and this is a mistake. We should emphasize in our classes that discrimination is just as bad as racism, and therefore still very wrong, because it seems to me that a lot of angry young liberal arts majors take the "you cant be racist to white people" argument to mean they can make generalizing and dehumanizing statements about white people and its ok because "they have the power".
ok whitey 😂
@@lmeko9787 You proved his point
@@giuseppemendoza6898 ok
god so many PhilosophyTube videos are so relevant in 2020
"You can't redefine words"
*laughs in linguist*
_laughs in descriptivism_
So so so grateful that you chose to leave these videos up. I still get so much value from them!!!
THIS WAS FANTASTIC! I actually attend St Andrews to study moral and political controversies and your videos offer more clarity than my lectures! thank you for everything olly, ive said it before and i'll say it again - i owe it to you that i got into this school, and by debt to you still continues as i do my course.
I have to congratulate you for the video. It was very professional and intellectually challenging. I love the idea of talking about contemporary philosophy. Keep up the good work.
Ollie,
I like your videos and I incorporate them into my Into to Philosophy class I teach.
Add to your reading list Reza Aslan's Zealot & No God but God
Moreh Brandt
Thank you for this!! Really interesting analysis, loving the channel and your style of narration!! (p.s. I'd love it if you decided to make some more postcolonial philosophy videos!)
This is one of my favorite videos on race because of the depth of information and the simplicity of its explaination, well done!!!
Good Job as per usual.
Another book added to my "to read" list.
I find it unusual and I cannot tell if this says something about myself or the format but this is the first time that I've heard someone explain the can't be racist against white people idea that made sense to me. Prior to this I always thought that the term/concept of institutional racism covered the discrepancy in what people were describing as racism and how racism is defined classically.
I never really bought into the whole "race is power plus prejudice" thing (and I understand that's not exactly what the video is saying) but this has pretty much pulled me to the other side of that thinking. Great video mate!
This video is amazing! Thanks for the work you put into it... Sheth just became my preferred modern philosopher and that is because I found your video!!! So thank you!
this seems to me an inadequate explanation of race: for one thing, race is a lot, a LOT older than liberalism. for another, many categories of race are *not* drawn on the basis of unruliness: for example, in the typical american system of race categories, asian is a race, and nobody drew up that category on the basis of unruliness and then subsequently claimed that it was drawn on the skin color and epicanthic folds. the theory doesn't work.
The example of the japanese in WW2 in the states, however, does work, but that's because it's using the theory in a very specific what, that is to say, stating that governments sometimes undertake racist policies. Yes, of course in history states undertake racist policies, but that's simply because states are run by folks, and folks, in some countries more than in others, some folks more than others, but in general there's a lot of folks that think in terms of race: and whatever worldview folks in power have is going to inform the policies the state run by those in power is going to effect, but that's an effect of the concept of race, not a cause.
the only thing that's being explained by this hypotheses is why sometimes states do racist stuff: and the explanation is, because some races are percieved as unruly by folks running that state... sure, I guess, not a bad explanation, but that's not why there exists a concept of race. The ostension is that this is an explanation of why the people who construct the category of race do it, and in that count, it totally fails: racist policies don't create the concept of race, they leverage already existing categories of and ideas about race in the population they're applied to, they use race, they don't create race.
+El Torco Oh yeah, power that isn't liberal power can create races, she just focuses specifically on liberal power because it's postcolonial philosophy. And maybe she'd say we should look at where the american system got its classifications from? Remember she said once it's part of the law and common discourse it can be perpetuated more easily.
+El Torco "for another, many categories of race are not drawn on the basis of unruliness: for example, in the typical american system of race categories, asian is a race, and nobody drew up that category on the basis of unruliness and then subsequently claimed that it was drawn on the skin color and epicanthic folds."
Let's not forget that "White" is also a race here, and that is a group that the American establishment has NEVER branded as "unruly".
Yeah, Sheth would say it's still drawn on the basis of unruliness though - it's just the non-unruly one, in the eyes of white Sovereign Power.
+Philosophy Tube that sounds like ideas of race are drawn on the basis of unruliness even if some races are "unruly", others are "ruly" and even others are neither one nor the other? what does that mean, then, for races to be drawn on the basis of unruliness? seems like an unfalsifiable statement: like... but then how come some non-unruly groups are races, and other groups imagined as neither ruly nor unruly are imagined as races as well.
It seems to me a better explanation races are drawn along lines of corporal features and cultural heritage, and then those categories of race are coopted, just like any social taxonomy can be coopted, by rulers: in this sense, it's true that racism can be *used* for political ends, and the method for that is a technology: but a) it's not the driving force behind race [that is to say, it's a consequence and not a cause] and b) it's nothing so very special: the same technologies can be used on other kinds of groupings: communists, homosexuals, immigrants, some indian caste, the members of some religion or other.
+Taurelion An excellent point! and whites are neither ruly nor unruly: it seems to me ruliness has nothing to do with the genesis of the concept of race but, rather, rulers just engage in policies intended to protect some phantasmatic "us" against some phantasmatic "dangerous other", and the dangerous others are, of course, the ones percieved as unruly or dangerous.
I know this video was made 3 years ago, but thought of a question that I find interesting. What does it mean for society when members of the community of vulnerability move into communities of strength, as they so often do. Such as women gaining suffrage and volition, and gay people being accepted into society. Do you think it enlightens the community of strength at all, or do the new members simply take on the positions of the original community of strength. Because I think it's the latter, as the racialisation of muslims is being promulgated by previously vulnerable groups just as much as by the majority group. If so, that's a pretty depressing answer because it leaves me with little confidence in the human condition. I think there must be more to it.
Oppression is fractal. Most people are in the middle - oppressed by someone with more power and oppressing someone else with less.
Look at the disablity community we have gone from vulnerable to leadership in Covid as we know how confusing inconstancy in messaging and fighting for simple rights can be.
Wow! Explains so much! Explained quite eloquently as well. Good job!
Awesome episode. Will definitely be picking up this book. Do you have one of those Amazon partner thingies where you get some small percentage of a sale if it goes through you?
I'd be happy to hear about Mill and Liberty next time.
Do a video on Marx's idea of race as a tool of capitalism and oppression. :)
This video actually contained this idea by pushing the new racism defintion.
Omg so young
I only started watching your videos about a month ago and this is my favorite video of yours its nice to know the theory behind what was so apparent when reading Howard Zinn. Thank you.
Being an amateur political and socioeconomic systems analyst and a newshound, it always occurred to me that what I thought of as "racism" didn't always apply to every country. I think that camps and racialization are a solid intellectual framework from which to analyze the problems of race, thanks so much for introducing them.
+Philosophy Tube I will try and address things point by point. I would disagree first of all that this happens only in Western societies but I am fine with using the West as an example so long as it is clear every culture in history has done similar things. Secondly I find it ridiculous to assume neo-liberal capitalism is a necessary or even important part of liberalism or the West. It is a weird capitalist sect that has only existed for a few decades.
I have a problem with her stated purpose of the state. It would be wrong to say that there is any single purpose to the state. Instead it is an institution used by many groups for different purposes. It may be that the one purpose at any given time some one is state power to preserve the status quo it is not necessary. So this error is not deadly for the theory, but it does show that it may not be the most well thought out.
Regarding what you said about the "Hypocrisy of liberalism" your example of the American founding fathers falls flat to those who know a bit about early US history. If Jefferson was the only member of the group then you would be right. However Jefferson is not a representative sample. The founding fathers were a diverse group in terms of opinions. Some were more liberal or egalitarian but others did not ever belief in equal rights for all. The creation of the US government and constitution represents comprises between these among other divides liberal and conservative. This does not threaten the theory presented but I was already critiquing the video so I might as well point it out.
I am not saying this type of racialization does not happen but be wary of such simple explanations. Racism come as much from the general population as from the elite. If you look at Europe today the liberal elites in charge of most of these countries and the EU explicitly discourage racism yet racism, anti-Muslim sentiment, and neo-Nazism are on the rise in Europe. Similarly in the US many wealthy elites like say they are color blind or above racism yet among the lower classes racism is fading more slowly. In fact the ruling class has several times in US history used its power against racists in lower classes. How would Shet's theory deal with that? You say it is hard to understand why some would discriminate against someone looking different than them. I would say that can be explained by the tribalistic nature of humans and animals like us. Over coming the baser elements of human nature is important over coming racism.
Racism is not just hatred but can include many forms judgement based on skin color or other racial features. If someone is saying that group A is lazy because of their skin that is racism even if the person does not hate the group.
From here on out let us refer to the traditional definition of as racism A and the definition advocated in this video as racism B.
Under racism B who could and could not be racist seems to change geographical boundaries. If you judge people based on race in country you are in the majority and then move to a country where you are a minority do you stop being racist? That seems quite silly. For an example let's imagine a Syrian refugee who dislikes black people. Under racism B he would be racist in his own country but become not racist if he takes refuge in a non-Arab country.
Secondly when you said white people can't be racist because racism is a form of discrimination you are making several assumptions that I don't think are justified. Firstly that only one in a privileged group can discriminate. Second one can only discriminate with the permission of who ever is in power. It certainly helps to be more effect at discrimination if you are in a privileged group or have government permission however it is not necessary.
It also assumes that only successful discrimination is racist. People in non-privileged groups can attempt to discriminate but will fail more often. Is a white person who who hates blacks also not a racist if he never succeeds at discrimination. Imagine two people who live in different towns the rural American south. One is black and lives in an all black town. The other is white and lives in an all white town. Both are impoverished and have never left their town. They never will leave their towns and thus will never actually meet a person of the other race. They both hate the other race and would love to discriminate against them. Thus both are Type A racists.
A fan of the racism B definition has three choices here. Stick to their definition and say that neither person can engage in discrimination and neither is racist. Give up on racism B and say both are racist. Or say that the white person is racist for being part of a privileged group but the black person is not. This last option means that you are judging people based on the skin color and giving different racial groups different characteristics rather than their character actions or intentions as a person. This last option of course would make you a type A racist.
Overall I do think that this kind of racialization happens but it is not the only kind.Nor is it is the only reason for racism. We should be careful of saying that a one reason for a social phenomenon is the one root cause as Shet seems to be doing. Mostly I have problems with the conclusions she seems to be drawing based this argument like her new definition of racism.
I'm pretty sure the author didn't mean that this thing *just* happens in western countries, but that her theory is applicable only to liberal societies because it deals with how the liberal values of those societies are protected through the racializations of the people they want to exclude from access to the rights that in theory, western societies believe are for everybody.
Really appreciate this video Olly, and good on you for posting on challenging topics like this. There's a lot of vitriol in the comments but some great points also.
I would love to see you discuss the debate about trans acceptance between radical and mainstream feminists, as in this New Yorker article: www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/04/woman-2
+David Cain
Super interesting article! Thanks for the link.
These are some great videos Oly! As someone who is biracial (black & white) and brown-skinned, this hits home for me.
Some of the points you make are the basis on which anarchists typically object to power and hierarchies in society.
Can someone explain the significance of the red wristband at 6:32. I can't find anything about it on google.
Have you seen Chef?
With Jon Favreau?
+I HemicArcher I Whatareya fucking straight?
+Haunter B Wow I didn't expect to get cancer today.
+Haunter B have u seen a prank boss
The protoge learns from the master, the master learns from the god. CHEFFFFFFFFFFFFF
There is a certain problem with the whole argument. Racism itself does not come from power. Power uses racism. That is a very different thing. Racism is a tool, not an invention of "those in power". The race itself is the same. Are there some (not a lot, but some) biological differences between the races? Yes, there are. Therefore, the concept race itself exists. The way the concept of race is used, however, is the problem. I think the idea that the people who use race to divide society actually INVENTED the concept of race is just... redundant and wrong. Race has always been here. The point is how people in power USE race. Religion has also been used to divide society and to oppress others. Have those who did it invented religion? No. Have they used it for such purposes? Yes.
If race isn't a construct then how come British people used to discriminate against Irish people a lot of the British people were biological closer to certain Irish people then to certain other British people thus implying racism being a construct
Correct use of “begging the question” ⭐️
To be clear I think the phrase has taken on new meaning as to say “leads to the question...” or “makes you wonder...”
Still a little pet peeve so, it’s nice to hear it in this.
I agree 100% with the critique of race as a social construct that imposes a power hierarchy by latching onto or otherwise creating distinguishing features, but I disagree with the redefinition of the word 'racist' as referring only to systemic dynamics. I don't think it's good optics, or necessarily going to elevate common discourse. I would rather we simply talk about 'systemic racism', and distinguish that from individual racism.
Besides, it's theoretically possible for a black person to be prejudiced against white people, even if it's in the context of a society that's primarily the white group oppressing the black group. I would argue this often occurs, in fact. It just doesn't carry the same weight because 1) it's understandable because of the socioeconomic frustrations these people are put under and 2) there is generally no overarching power imbalance to amplify any racist actions taken by a black person -- whereas a white person does have those benefits.
If you agree that this is possible, what are we supposed to call these feelings if not racist? I think the definition of racism itself should be kept simple, and we should simply popularize a term along the lines of systemic racism to critique the power imbalance of race relations in these societies. Thoughts?
I disagree with the premise that Power is from where race is defined and projected. Rather, I think race and the categorization of the "other" comes simply from the experience of the beholder and their fear of that which is unknown.
People do not need a media message to fear someone with a different skin color and strange behaviors; under the strain and stress of everyday existence one can find one's self cautious towards anything that cannot be readily understood.
From there, the group in power can validate their biases and prejudices BECAUSE they have power to generate cultural material. So, in my view, the perception of race more essentially comes for the meeting of one group with a set of characteristics with another group with different qualities. The group who gains power can AFTERWARDS create a story from which they can discriminate and create further separation.
Nice video, I have a critique of it though, or more accurately, of the premises and arguments it conveys.
Defining race as a "type of mental tool" immediately puts it in the social construct column and out of the biological one. This is the fundamental, foundational premise of the theory and it begs the question. There are those who claim race is a social construct and those who claim it is biological. Changing social construct to mental tool does nothing to disprove the competing, biological, definition of race. First you must refute the biological definition before you can assert the contradicting definition; or, at least make the case that race and racism can have both biological & social definitions simultaneously, correctly. If you make the latter case - both definitions are ok - then you reduce the dialectic to a semantic argument.
+Sam Woods Yup, I said why she thinks using it just as biological category is interesting at the start, and how to assess her theory at the end.
Sam Woods I would say that biological aspect is too broad.
I think the video is great. I didn't get everything so I might have to listen to it again and let everything sink in. However, what I can say is that it clearly is making people react (I mean, 640 comments on a 7 803 views video is A LOT) and reaction creates disscussion which in return moves the dialogue forward. Sure there might be a few nonconstructive comments out there (like everywhere else) but there truely are interesting disscussions happening. I'm pretty new to the channel and just subbed and I'm really looking forward for more of your content. Good work keep it up :)
+IrontMesdent Welcome to the little community!
This has me thinking about how it ties into Scott's idea of legibility (see "Seeing Like a State") and I'd love to see you cover that concept.
I think Sheth’s concept is true in the sense that race is often used by power to control groups, but I think it’s wrong in the idea that race is introduced by that power. Race is a vestige of our evolution from tribalism. We are hard wired to distrust the “others”. Therefore anything that makes it easy to identify the other will lead us to distrust them.
The problem I see with Sheth’s interpretation is that it is simply casting the people in power as the “other”. It is the less powerful tribes building a united front against the more powerful tribe. That will inevitably lead to war.
What we need to focus on is individuals. Point out instances of racial discrimination, we need to know that’s happening so those actions can be publicly criticized. But recognize your tendencies towards tribalism and take that into account when you are judging other people. My brain’s wiring that makes me feel more anxious when getting into an elevator with a black man does not justify me treating that person differently. Just like any undesired behaviour, you can’t hope to fix it if you won’t acknowledge it.
I remember when this channel presented ideas with opposing arguments, to encourage discussion and debate. those were good times.
+sukilu1964 You mean like the opposing arguments I anticipated in the video?
+Philosophy Tube eh? sorry olly, it seemed there were some assertions, and points made to defend those assertions against possible (poor) objections. not what I really would think of as an opposing model, that may equally explain societal behaviour/structures. so is this model applicable to the uk? how so? how are people on welfare a threat to the state, for instance?
People who need welfare to survive might be designated as unruly by neoliberal capitalist Sovereign Power, because welfare doesn't sit with neoliberalism.
+Philosophy Tube 'designated unruly' doesn't explain how they are a threat. how do you assign 'unruliness', what metric do you use? and how do you do it on a collective basis, without it being arbitrary?
You're right, it doesn't! It's about Sovereign Power perceiving unruliness based on challenges to its basic assumptions. And it might well be arbitrary.
Thank you for your dedication to easily accessible education that is much needed.
i'm learning so much with your videos. Amazing!
So you say race is a technology? but isn't sexism the same thing just based on well the sex?
Also you said that racism is a specif set of discrimination, and you bring the white are in power.... what about ares of the world where whites are the minority? like Asia or Africa? According to you then, you can be racist against whites there?
Or what about whites being racist against whites? Like mostly in Europe. For example Polish people and Irish people?
Or what about the Jews who are sometimes are portrayed as white sometimes as something else? Again in Europe.
My Problem with this definition of racism is that its very american centrist, and doesn't take other areas of the world into account at all.
+NaGeL Yhea I mean, if the Irish could be sold as slaves by the British, then I think that should count as some form of racism. Through history there has been rampent discrimination against whites by whites, as you say the Irish, Polish, heck most of eastern Europe are treated as second class citizens by those in power.
I mean if they wanted to talk about upper class white privilege then I think they would be on sounder ground.
But lumping the poorist of the poor in with the upper classes based purely on their skin color is a pretty racist thing to do in the first place.
+Parmenion Macedon
>But lumping the poorist of the poor in with the upper classes based purely on their skin color is a pretty racist thing to do in the first place.
I dont get this part of your comment care to explain?
+NaGeL +NaGeL It basically means some people categorized as "white" have less privilege than others. Compare the jews, the Irish, etc., to the "W.hite A.nglo S.axxon P.rotestants", or "WASP's" to any other group considered white, and you realize that white has a hierarchy as well, which makes it an oversimplification to say that white people are privileged.
+treynaylor3 White hasa hierarchy?
that's news to me . How does "whiteness" have a hierachy?
NaGeL It's not anything codified or solid, which is why it's news to you. A lot of the issues Olly talks about here and in his video about things being "problematic" come from sociology coming up with and using redefinitions and new terms that are not widely available and understood by the general public. This is only made worse by people who have heard terms like "problematic" and misuse the word, do a bad job explaining what they mean when they say problematic, or don't define their use of problematic at all and just say someone else is wrong.
The long and short of it is that we've changed the idea of what is "white" over history. Today, we've simplified it and called anyone with french, irish, spanish, polish ancestry, etc., white people. Sociology classes say that a while back, if you were white and french, french was considered your race, so Irish people would say they were Irish, not white. Same with spanish, same with polish. This leads to white Jews being considered white.
Olly's explanation of racialization means that the Jews were racialized by Germans, despite both of them being white by today's standards. Same with the Irish slaves being racialized by Brits. This produces the idea that some white people can be better than others and be higher on a hierarchy. In +Parmenian Macedon's example of Irish slaves being sold by the British, the British are seen as "higher on the hierarchy" than the Irish.
"White people have historically held the balance of power"
Myopic statement, at best. I'm pretty sure if you ask the average citizen in China how much power white people have, or have had historically, you might get a much different answer.
Also I'm pretty sure the same techniques were used in imperial Japan to justify the cruel behavior against people in SE Asia.
You don't have to delineate the "unruly" by variations in humans. You can do so by any characteristic or location of origin. We already have a word for this BTW: Tribalism.
The TL;DR version of the argument: people in power stay in power by creating an "us vs them" mentality. Well, no shit Sherlock.
+SorienAAAA White supremacy holds in a particular context; he's not saying it's always been that way or anything. Your example of Imperial Japan is a good one.
As for "Tribalism", it seems as though she's using "racialization" in a very general sense that would encompass tribe and several other factors.
"it seems as though she's using "racialization" in a very general sense that would encompass tribe and several other factors."
I think it's the other way around. Tribalism is as broad as you can get, because you can arbitrarily define a "tribe" any way you want. She's trying to narrow down the parameters by what ways some people are grouped together...for the purpose of maintaining state power.
Chinese people Love white America. My manager is Chinese and believes that white America has plenty of power to through around to the point of altering the shape of their eye, nose, and everything else to fit the American mold.
It depends on the time in history. The Boxer rebellion occurred, purely because the Chinese government was no longer sovereign. The European imperialist powers essentially had full control over China from the Opium War until World War two.
I am really grateful for the parts where there is no music in the background. As being HSP I have a hard time follow your voice when there is music playing as well. So if you could at least lower the volume of the music that would make me happy. Thanks. :) And I do love your videos so much. So easy to follow your thoughts. Great job!
+Leo Ringqvist There are english captions, if that'd help, proper ones, not computer generated ones.
No, it's a sound thing. I can't turn off what my ears are hearing as well as others. Being supersensitive is a pain at times. Thanks for replying! :)
Recently found your channel and watching through it.
I think even though there is "race" as almost purely biological phenomenon (biological and genetic describer of population), the concept of "race" as a societal construct that uses some of those biological, as well as social/cultural traits to oppress "unruley" and "other" is a really good one, and technicly they don't contradict each other.
I recently adopted a view that race is this two different but connected things: "biological race" and "social race" and they not always match.
Racism is an evolutionary trait, we evolved to trust those who had similar genes, and mistrust those who were different.
False dichotomy dude
+Sebastián López Where is the dichotomy? Why is it false?
+Sebastián López I I don't think so. Either you trust someone or not. I think what he was aiming for was "distrust", which means not to trust someone so it wouldn't be a false dichotomy.
You're right people, I misused the term. Either way I disagree, and won't try to talk you into my point of view.
Cheers.
Sebastián López In order of clarity, I wasn't expressing my view on his point, just on your claim of "it's a False Dichotomy"
Awesome video as always. I'd love to see a video on Mill's On Liberty
This is probably one of your best video. Very well presented, and a very improtant and "present day" topic. Even though I don't really agree with the way some terms are used (for example technology) I think that this theory is overall very good and it gives a great insight into the broader issue. But I think that you should've gone a bit deeper into how a group becomes unruly in the first place. But overall a very, very good video :)
I love her definition of race! As a biologist, I have always seen race as mostly a human construct because, so long as individuals who appear different can produce viable and fertile offspring, they are of the same species. Even that can be difficult when you start talking about plants and sometimes when talking about animals but the general rule holds most of the time and it definitely holds for humans. I think the idea of race came about before we knew enough about biology to understand how similar we are at a cellular and genetic level. Before we knew much about genetics, we used always classify living things based mostly on how they looked and many of these classifications held because physical traits do tend to be inherited. However, being humans ourselves, we have perhaps given ourselves more classifications before we were able to understand the whole genetic picture and, of course, some things we just made up to oppress people (i.e. you can't really tell who is a Jew without looking at their actual family history and I am an example of this because I'm Jewish but don't really have any of the classical physical features). When we figured genetics out, we corrected our genealogical errors in animals species fairly easily because mostly only biologists gave a damn about that, but when it came to correcting our misconceptions about our fellow human beings, a lot of people are still attached to the old way of thinking. I like how she relates this to power because, so often, you hear racists talking negatively about people they consider to be less than themselves in terms of having their power taken away from them. They can't seem to see it as sharing power with their fellow human beings. The narrative seems to be that, if they allow those people to share in the power, those people might take all the power away from them and oppress them in the same ways that they have been oppressing others. It's a fear of losing some kind of power that is special because only people who look like them have had it in the past. Just look at how threatened racist in the US got when we elected Barak Obama and how they seem to feel justified now that we have Trump. They act like Obama took their power away because of the color of his skin and Trump has given it back to them because, not only is he white, but he at least tacitly supports racism.
Seriously, Ollie. Thank you x a gazillion.
Actually I've just checked out your other vids. Some excellent and informative stuff
Good Job!! Love the vlogs!! Keep it up!!!
Is there a bibliography for this video?
Really amazing work Olly(is that the right spelling?). Very challenging stuff but important! :)
+Theo Greiner Yeah that's the right way :) Thanks for checking!
This is great Olly. Really top notch stuff.
Hi, I'm going through your "back catalogue" .................heck woman you are fantastic.... love it...
So does this makes a distinction between ethnic groups or races or, are they the same?
this book seems very interesting! i wanna try reading it!
Welp, this video sure is eye-opening.
Gosh, I love this channel. :P
A couple of things: 1. Maybe the playlists could be arranged in reverse chronological order, so when they play in right sequence when allowed to run automatically :) 2. Sheth's arguments as presented here seem to depict any sort of racial division as a means to preserve power - an interesting angle, but one that seems not to acknowledge the very basic human (or perhaps even non-human) tendency to recognise differences. And rather than unruliness as the key to these divisions becoming significant, it feels like resource scarcity plays a bigger role.
Maybe this is a tremendously ignorant question to ask - but what does someone wearing a red wristband signify/used to signify?
love it! i have learned so much! thank you
Great video! Great model of race! I'll be sharing this with my intergroup communication professor.
Hey Olly, do you have a Goodreads account? I would love to see the books you've read, and perhaps exchange some.
+willemdeajaxfan I don't but people keep asking me so maybe I should.
Great idea, wish I came up with that.
*giggles*
I was keenly looking forward to this video. Very interested in this topic as it is so relevant to things going on today.
I've had conversations with American white nationalists, and a definition like Sheth's would immediately be dismissed as ivory-tower nonsense. It plays right in to their idea of themselves as down-to-earth, no-nonsense, common sense people fighting against academics who have too much book learning to see straight. A simple and straight forward definition like "racism is the belief that there are human races and that some races are more worth than others" makes communication a lot easier, and packs more of a punch. There's a strong argument to be made that words should make sense, and "racism" being a word for something to do with "race" makes sense. This applies even more when we're talking about people without a college degree or people with English as their second or third language.
Sheth's concept seems useful, but it deserves and needs it's own word.
+KRIGBERT I addressed this idea in the comment reply video: it begs the question against some of Sheth's work for reasons I explain there.
Not sure how "begging the question against something" works, but I am pretty sure that I'm not assuming my conclusion in my premises.
(What I'm saying is that Sheth's concept is useful, but it becomes inaccessible and confusing for people who aren't academics because it's attached to this word that seems to have a different, but related meaning (I guess the popular conception of racism is more of a subset of Sheth's?). It's also a great excuse for racists to dismiss the entire concept of "racism" as claptrap, so it may be a bad idea strategically.)
+KRIGBERT While I appreciate Olly's work here, I have to say that you have it right. This kind of stuff makes for interesting discussion, but it does almost nothing in practice. The kind of people who most need to learn about this kind of stuff are exactly the kinds of people who dismiss this as overly academic nonsense. I've seen it happen, both in this comment section and elsewhere. And there's very little that is accomplished by this conception of "race" and "racism" that can't be accomplished by using the more traditional definition. I'd Occam's Razor all of this stuff away.
+BNerd Thank you! Good to see I'm not the only one who sees that. Although I'd still say the broader concept still seems useful.
You can never trust someone you've screwed over. The more 'the unruly' are abused the more reason they have to be unruly and the more fearful of retaliation people become. They become more likely to abuse again. A vicious circle sustained primarily by the abuser out of fear.
+Philiosophy Tube I salut yout courage to tackle this subject!
Surprisingly your community doesn't seem to be reacting with riots in the comment's section. That's a plus, keep up the good work. Love the vids.
This is an awesome tool for bridging serious gaps that, honestly, my generation can’t feel as easily. I’m Black, I hate talking to white people about race. I feel I have to at this time because I have to be able to live with myself when I die. The worst conversation to ever have to have when you’re in my age group is with a white friend whose gotten called out by someone much younger for doing racism. The moment they think about it they’ll have a list in their head of all the times they were doing racism and I get that it. I have been on the receiving end of it and in a lot of cases I didn’t even know how to put it in words. One of my warmest memories as a child would seem shockingly racist if I described today. I won’t, I knew what she meant from what she did. What you do tells anyone so much more than what you say and means so much more. If a person understood the video, you’ll know that the social dynamics gives a bit of an advantage to people that are experiencing being on the receiving end of those structures.
The first time I ran into Poggee was in an ethics class, he’s possibly a bit of a hypocrite in real life, was when I was in a college ethics class. The teacher was a bit of a friend and the professor would get so annoyed that I’d undermine the argument as soon as she would give it. I’d make arguments that the professor knew were philosophical close but with easy to catch logical flaws. In the moment it would seem completely irrefutable however! Plenty of classes that the whole class would find themselves at a loss. I never got the chance to show the trick that they were acting in ways and presenting in ways that had already made the optics of presenting the argument just plan ridiculous in the class at the very moment the arguments were being presented. Especially the teacher and because of the obviousness of me being a black person they lost their vocabulary to say it. My presence dumbed them down or the society we live in dumbed them down, depending on how you took the video. We don’t pick the world we are born into, we just try and make it better. Playing devils advocate to never have any acknowledge your race and exclude you from the conversation mentally because you find seeing your friend ruin the material by contradicting it to be equivalent to scratching a chalkboard and want to maintain your gpa in a required class probably didn’t.
This was fascinating to watch and gave me a lot to think about. Such as, a possible refute against changing the dictionary definition for not covering enough... Who writes the dictionary? That answer also answers why the definition is not sufficient.
Great video, this really makes sense to me, as it fits our current society. As a person who never thinks that I am racist, I realize that I do stereotype people, especially African Americans, often.
Thank you for this video Abigail!
You seem to like this idea Ollie. Which is why the 'challenges and responses' section should have been longer and more comprehensive than it is.
Are you going to make a response video?
+The Realistic Nihilist No, that would require Gary to know what the fuck he was talking about.
Wow. Thoughts. Wow. Firstly, this was amazing. Really. These theories make a lot of sense, AND the way in which it was presented is just fantastic.
My thoughts: is the 'exception' necessary to the functioning of a liberal society? Why? Is it just the remnants of colonialism or something intrinsic to liberal governing or, perhaps, human nature?
A final thought, and probably the one I'm most invested in is the effect of our language on our understanding of these ideas. Apart from the obviously (or maybe I shouldn't say it's obvious) problematic descriptor of "black" and "white" people...what about the word "race"? I find that it's very difficult to understand "racism", simply because the language of the word "race" is so steeped in our current understanding that has more to do with superficial things like skin colour, that there's no point trying to salvage it. Really. I think a different term would be far more useful...not because the theory doesn't work, but because we already have meanings for the word "race" and - for better or worse - they are inevitably linked to being 'black' or 'white' or - laughably - a 'person of color' or...a 'person of non-color'??? 'uncolored'????? lol
For example, this principle explains homophobia in Jamaica so well, *so well*, but it would be just as difficult for me to convince Jamaicans that they are racist, as it would be for you to convince Dawkins that Islam is a race.
SIR! this is a FANTASTIC video! must watch for ALL AMERICANS!!
This video absolutely blew my mind. On the challenges I think this theory of racism explains systemic racism very well but not personal/individual racism which I think is not entirely irrelevant and how it can feed the sovereign's power to help fear-monger.
Yes, power has used the concept of race to divide populations not on the basis of genes but on the basis of status and culture, for example the british and the americans used to regard irish people as an inferior race even if they looked white, Italians were considered not white until not long ago in America, often latinos with 100% european descent aren't considered white in america, latino is not a race as I understand the actual meaning of the word yet it is considered as such in America. I am a liberal and this is how I understand the word race; the collection of similar traits and charasteristics among the members of a population within a species that are necessarilly explained by similarities in their genetic code.
Given that definition we have a lot of races in europe, the italic, the british and irish celtic, the germanic, the slavic, the iberian etc, (those are not the name of races by the way just the name of populations that fit the mentioned definition of race, and all of them are a mixture of various races) there's a lot of races in Africa as well, and a lot in Asia, Also we can say that people with subsaharan african descent are a race, northern europeans are a race southern and central europeans are another, East asians are a race etc, and humans are a race too. those traits in my opinion make no difference in your culture by themselves, but in America given the historic division by race of the population, race has been linked to ethnicity and people has been encouraged by their peers and the society to indentify strongly with their ethnicity, personally don't like that approach, Liberalism advocates for ethnical and racial integration, not racial segregation, not racial benefits, that's why I don't like black lives matters, affirmative action, nor the Alt- Right, as a liberal however I respect every individual's right to protest as long as he or she respects other people's rights too. I make no exceptions regarding who is entitled to bennefit from the Liberal principles.
What exactly would count against Sheth's model?
The phenotypic differences we use to categorize race are heritable. It's genetics and it's not just for 'bad' people who see race, it has important biological implications. Try finding a bone marrow donor match as a black man in a country where you're a minority.
Just because there's more phenotypic variation within one population, doesn't mean it's any less of a viable a category. We see the same thing with subspecies in biology.
The differences we see resulting from the genetic isolation of populations results in not only physical differences but also behavioral differences. You can look up studies observing different personality traits between the races, like prevalence of extroversion versus introversion, etc.
Just because there are very real biological differences stemming from the evolution of genetically isolated populations does not imply one race is superior to another. It also doesn't make you a racist for recognizing differences.
+The Choler of Chloë This.
+The Choler of Chloë I agree with what you're saying, but, as is pointed out in the video, race as is used in politics usually serves as a means to affect the rights of the race. Talking about a certain race as having certain personality characteristics or physiology is distinct from the act of parsing those characteristics to "make" a race (for lack of a better term), and it certainly doesn't serve to describe how that race is treated in society. Once you have constructed that distinction then in-group out-group, cultural and social cognitive factors come into play. I say all this as a student of evolutionary psychology.
+The Choler of Chloë If one were racist for recognising differences, it would be odd of Sheth (the philosopher Olly is talking about), to be a-okay with supporting racial identities. Yes, there are biological distinctions between different groups of people, and it's okay to observe this, and even identify with them. The core of Sheth's argument is simply that these distinctions are not the real reason racial tension exists between populations.
From the sound of the arguments you present I suspect you'd enjoy Charles Mills, "The Racial Contract". I read it back in college, admittedly. But remember enjoying it!
Would love to hear your thoughts about Mill on Liberty!
So...
1) Understanding how it's used in politics and law
2) who constructs it, why and how
How are either of these at odds with it being constructed?
Olly, please do a video(s) on Engels, Marx, and Lenin. You know you want to. You've said you read Capital recently, after all.
Very nice job Olly!
This may seem like an obvious question but what is this idea of unruliness and why does sovereign power want to supress it so much? is it because unruliness challemges that power? if so, how?
This is particularly true for a highly diverse country like India. Indian society has so many verticals and horizontals. Country is vertically divided into states (based on their ethnicity/language) again horizontally divided into castes/religions. Though biologically/racially almost all the Indians are same, it's so relevant the way its done here... Tamils are played against Punjabis and Keralaiets against Biharis, based on their language, movies, literacy rates etc. Again within a state, each caste is played against the other. And nationally across the states religions are played against each other.. Its such a complex society and the sovereign power of every state tries to imbibe these racial thoughts into the individuals and politicians celebrate Holi almost every election on these attributes...
Very good video, the same techniques in reverse create in groups such as who is patriotic, who is a good citizen, or define the qualities of those that make up the base in groups of the sovereign power. There are a lot of good concepts in this video.
That was a brilliant way to define racial issues, especially since the definition can be extended to include not just biological characteristics, but ideological ones as well. By which I mean gamers, furries, people who self-identify as members of specific online groups or forums. The internet has created entire universes cut from whole cloth so its fascinating to try and understand the mechanisms that drive the actualization of the self and formation of the identity through either internal or external means and the use of race as a technology helps to define the means by which that can and does happen.Though what really interests me is the preservation of one's cultural identity and how it affects due representation as well as the balance of power as its expressed through the social contract, since historical precedent basically shows us that when those who have been oppressed by sovereign power seek liberty, they often do so by forming their own communities or independent nation states. Or by inciting bloody rebellion if not all out revolution.
What group is associated with a red wristband? I've never heard of this before.
+somewony There was a plan that was recently scrapped to make refugees in Calais wear red wristbands when relocated to the UK. It was scrapped shortly after I filmed this I think.