ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ส.ค. 2024
- The Progressive Plantation by Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin:
libcom.org/library/progressiv...
Lua's videos:
• The Master Debater Vau...
• Responding To Vaush's ...
• On My Debate with Vaush.
JohnTheDuncan's video:
• Left Wing White Suprem...
Chris Hedges Feminism:
• Chris Hedges - What is...
Info on 'Arrivants':
muse.jhu.edu/article/633283 - เกม
![อยู่ได้แล้ว - LIPTA feat. Mirrr [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-9-hpntNym4/mqdefault.jpg)
Are white people supposed to step out of the way, or do they have a greater responsibility? You seem to flipflop between the notion of claiming too much responsibility to having more responsibility than thought.
Dia Angel said herself the best way White people can help other people groups is to dismantle the racism amongst themselves.
@@BadMouseProductions Could they not do both?
@@CyanTeamProductions well yes, but if you ask me from my experience in groups and just observations on the Internet it just doesn't work well, because a lot of us don't wanna help in any meaningful way, most of us just wanna be seen (e.g. Do the fun stuff, do a speech etc)
Like I said it's hard for us to really empathise or be considerate enough because of the lack of feedback loops, even I've made a few errors in these videos.
If you can do both then sure but it's only been my observation that lots of people say they wanna help but end up talking over it all. And that seems to be quite systemic.
@@fun_ghoul Lorenzo states in the book there will be no good anti racist movement if it is eld by white people and lists all his experiences when that has been the case.
@@BadMouseProductions I think that is a fair enough point, I also disagree on how you define racism here as I think power is a trait of racism, but not it’s definition.
As an Irish person, "Anglo" is one word I don't like to be called.
@@fun_ghoul It's not racist, I never said it was.
But the reason certain groups speak the language of their coloniser is because their own language was literally beaten out of them during the violent process of colonisation.
That is definitely true of all english speaking irish folk all over the world. Their own culture and language was beaten and starved out of them.
That's the only reason I speak english.
@@fun_ghoul I hear you. It's sad to see colonised people forget their roots like that.
@@fun_ghoul calling someone the wrong ethnicity, especially the ethnicity of their oppressor is racist
@@fun_ghoul yes it is. Race and racism are extremely broad concepts. Many academic, legal and dictionary definitions of race include ethnicity, nationality and ancestry. It’s as broad or narrow as you want to make it. Judging by your name, English isn’t your first language.
@@fun_ghoul just getting the ball rolling my communist friend. Quit cosplaying a victim and keep up your anti European racism. You aren’t slick with ur pfp and name.
This America-Centrism thing is so true. How can i not be allowed to talk about USA's elections outcome when they will directly affect my country? I didn't even know Vaush said that, geez. Truly anything to "win" an argument even if it contradicts your supposed beliefs, huh? Anyways, another great video!
I got a stronger rebuttal as well, How can I not be allowed to complain about US politics when my country shares a damn border with the damn country. Literally everything the US does spills over, we are next to each other.
Further - in NATO, UN, COPA, international commerce, finance, whatever the hell you call the CIA's sphere of operations, etc the US is a big player.
Not to mention he constantly talks about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as if he's a pro on the matter, which directly contradicts his supposedly globalist views
@@yonatanhoresh2695 Even worse. He is good friends with Eristocracy, a very, very pro Israel government youtuber
Because Vaush didn't say that, that's why. Also, great video? They guy literally came out swinging in favour of ethnic cleansing
I really hate how that sonic meme has been abused, because while there can never be ethical consumption under capitalism, the choices of what you consume still has an impact. I’m fond of whiskey, and normally I would get Evan Williams Bourbon, but the other day I got a different whiskey, why? Because the workers who make Evan Williams at the Heaven Hill Distillery are on strike. So while the distillery who makes the whiskey I bought yesterday isn’t ethical either, if I were to buy Evan Williams I would be crossing a picket line and undermining the workers who are on strike.
People love being told that in absolute terms because it allows them to continue consuming carelessly without feeling guilty. It basically just tells them "engage in thoughtless consumerism cause you can't change anything c:".
Its like how a lot of streamers such as Vaush do absolutely nothing to advocate for or engage in actual groundwork for these movements. Vaush will use every excuse in the book to not go out and put in effort but the moment he's given the chance to fly out and make friends with Tim Pool he laps it up without hesitation. Don't bother putting in work or trying to actually change your lifestyle to help foster a revolutionary outlook, just donate to my stream when I'm already making hundreds of thousands of dollars and defend me on twitter by telling everyone who hates me that they have VDS!
@@SomniaCE honestly a big part of the reason I don’t produce all the much content is because my life is spent organizing. I’m an organizer for Jobs with Justice as my profession and I am an active member of DSA outside of work. As a result, I often just don’t have the time or energy to podcast or make videos, meanwhile vaush is making 40x what I make at my day job by reacting to Twitter bs and talking out of his ass!
I would have infinitely more respect for Vaush if he did something like saying “hey, the DSA chapter in the city I live in is having a meeting next Sunday, you should come” because then he’d actually be doing something, even if it’s the smallest thing possible.
Unethical consumption is unethical sure, but unethical consumption WHILE crossing a picket line? Even more unethical than the default 😛
Also shit I didn't realize the workers who make Evan Williams were on strike. I drank some just last weekend, but it was from a bottle that was bought like six months ago that we forgot about 😲
@@shredded_lettuce just don’t buy a new bottle of Evan william or Elijah Craig. And if you really wanna go the extra mile, tell the liquor store to take all Heaven Hill products off the shelf
I think buying or sourcing one's vegetables from a cooperatively run, community permaculture lot is radically different from buying from a supermarket chain. Setting the issues surrounding the manufacture of tools, implements and transportatio, you aren't dealing with extended supply chains, profit motives and stratified labour forces. The former cuts out the bs of a large supermarket chain and thus streamlines your vegetable consumption along a more farm-to-table line, thereby making it more 'ethical' or desirable means of obtaining vegetables.
It's funny how Vaush just refused to acknowledge that a nation doesn't have to be bound by geography.
do you really think deporting white people from the US is okay because it is the US is not bound by geography? the same could be said to native americans too. you are just defending genocide/ethnic cleansing.
@@bernardeugenio LOL did I say that? Or anything that would lead to that conclusion?
@@oliverp3545 yeah, if you make up your own definitions of words, they can mean whatever you want. Still doesn't actually make any practical difference though
The photo used when you said “Native nations still exist!” is of my dear friend Morningstar Gali, her daughter, and relatives. I may have actually taken the photo...
"VDS" is just "[TRIGGERED]" for Vaush fans
I mean it is literally what trump supporters said when anyone criticized him. So. Yeah.
@@pinkharmonica7656 people literally make up shit he didn't say and point at him saying how bad he is lmao
@@daddykarlmarx6183 if you dish out falsehoods better be prepared to recieve some yourself
@@daddykarlmarx6183 How is it that you can comment on a video directly quoting him with "He didn't say that lol"
With Vaush fans its hilarious because if no direct clips are shown its "he didn't say that" with him being able to commit to dogwhistle-esque rants. If clips are shown they're "out of context" without any real refutal as to how the context was cut or how context being given would fundamentally change the point being made.
Its literally the equivilant to dealing with Jordan Peterson fans 5 years ago lol
When they get to the end of their script (say VDS over then repeat his talking points) they finally conclude with that classic from Sargon fans "I'm not even a fan/stan, I just like some of his content".
RE: British Celts - I guess why I found that section difficult is that I live in a settler colonial state and something that white supremacists say towards sections of our indigenous population is shit like "Oh your culture is dead, your efforts at preservation is just you making shit up". Not to say that what is going on with the Celts nowadays is really comparable to what is going on in settler-colonial states and druids aren't being oppressed but I don't think that these people should be dismissed easily because this argument can be aimed against the oppressed people in settler colonial states. Reconstruction of culture should be judged on its actual merits and not be treated as a fool's errand. I don't live in Britain and my connection to my Celtic ancestry/culture is non-existent so there is possibly nuance I am missing here.
Everything else that I even mildly disagreed on in the other video was clarified by you in this one. Keep up the good work. :)
"Like you know US policy exclusively targets brown people foreign and domestic but a twitter user once joked about mayocide once so you know like maybe the left has some learning to do???"
Thank you, Vaush, very based. Racism truly is a complicated issue.
Yo doesn't mean black people can't be racist against white people though. It's not just about power structures. It's about ideas. And this guy's attempted argument was garbage.
@@colingundel8779 "It's not just about power structures"
fuckin hell
@@adrenalinevan what's wrong with what I said. Or should a try and make it simpler for you to understand?
@@colingundel8779 nothing at all was wrong with what you said. Existing power structures and mean comments from people who'll never enact their ideas in the real world should be given equal consideration when discussing these topics. The way some white people feel when encountering crazies of other races is integral to the discussion of decolonialism. Deontology is one hell of a drug.
@@adrenalinevan ah, strawmanning
Getting real sick of Vape Nationalism tbh. I don't care if there is no country of vape.
Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin is awesome. I highly recommend Anarchism and the Black Revolution. It covers a lot of bases. He and his partner Jonina Ervin also have a podcast called Black Autonomy which is great as well.
"The power of enclosing land and owning property was brought into the creation by your ancestors by the sword; which first did murder their fellow creatures, men, and after plunder or steal away their land, and left this land successively to you, their children. And therefore, though you did not kill or thieve, yet you hold that cursed thing in your hand by the power of the sword; and so you justify the wicked deeds of your fathers, and that sin of your fathers shall be visited upon the head of you and your children to the third and fourth generation, and longer too, till your bloody and thieving power be rooted out of the land."
- A Declaration from the Poor Oppressed People of England, 1649
This is reminiscent of Crazy Horse in 1876-77 observing the trends of the US, it's expansionism, it's structural racism, and it's oppression of even it's premier racial caste (albiet considerably more muted than it's oppression towards it's lower racial castes) and proclaiming the US would only last 7 more generations. The window for that generation is objectively straddling the border of Millennial and Zoomers. We are in those times, and it will soon be like in those days when we were free to be responsible.
Nya:weh for the post.
😳 How can anyone seriously argue with this? It's just facts. These Vaush fans sound just like the liberals & right wingers who were/are triggered by the concept of "white privilege". They take it as some type of personal attack, rather than just recognizing reality, it as a phenomena they benefit from simply by being white. 😐
"Baby leftism" is just another term for "liberalism". A nicer way of putting it, probs bc BM is trying to get through to them easier. 😂 I hope it works with at least a few. Then it will be worth it, imo.
@@fun_ghoul It really is! The same people, doing the same thing. 😭 Just attempting to repackage & apply it to another instance. Nice to see you, too! 🚩❤
The longer I live the more I realize leftists have never even spoken to a native person from any colonized place. Including you guys who are quick to say you’re on our side and signal that virtue but then at every fucking moment do things that not only Dont do anything but actively prevent any movement forwards.
Or just say genocide and ethnic cleansing are off the table.
"no colonial tensions in britain" dude scotland and ireland are BOTH right there
@rahul22 22 and white people have never been colonised?
Ireland is not Britain. It is in the British Isles but it is not the island of Great Britain. What is largely being focused on is settler colonialism which isn't happening in Scotland in any real degree. It isn't the same as in Ireland in which land was taken from the Irish by the British. England isn't sending in English people to dispossess land from the Scottish.
@@elizatindall1519 You literally know nothing about the history of Ireland, Scotland and Wales if you think they never experienced settler colonialism at the hands of the British.
Considering you don’t even seem to realise Northern Ireland is part of the UK this is not surprising.
@@sambryce321 Uhhh... I think he admitted (rightly) that Ireland was the victim of settler-colonialism. Do you just skim over the comments you reply to? Don't think there's anything to suggest they aren't aware of the NI situation either.
You on the other hand don't even use the term British properly. You're not selling yourself as a history expert here. Wales, Scotland, and England are on the island of Britain. Ireland is not. There's your lecture for the day. Mr genius.
Scotland being the victim of colonialism is just silly and is only ever seen as part of ahistorical modern independence discourse. Mostly as a dig against English art students or restaurateurs living in Edinburgh. There was no dispossession or plantation system put in place in Scotland. And upon union, Scotland had immediate political representation in Westminster. I struggle to think how anyone thinks this is remotely similar to the state of affairs in Ireland, let alone North America or India.
@@SquareHeadSlacker Yeah, you either don’t live in the Uk or are terminally online.
Firstly, the terms Britain and United Kingdom are used interchangeably. Like as in everyone including the BBC do it (it’s even in their name).
Secondly, Welsh people absolutely experienced settler colonialism (even before Ireland). There’s even an area of west Wales people call “little England beyond Wales” because of the English settlements created. You obviously no nothing about Wales though so I won’t bore you with the details. Suffice to say there is a very grim reason why Wales has the highest density of castles per square mile out of any country in the world.
As for Scotland, I suggest you look up the highland clearances. While it doesn’t fit the term settler colonialism exactly, it still has many aspects that are similar. But again it’s probably something you have never heard of.
And obviously the reason I included Ireland in that trio is because they undoubtedly won’t know Irish history either if their knowledge of other parts of the British isles is anything to go off.
I used to think there was considerable merit in the (relatively recently-conceived) power-structure definition of racism, but having got a broader sense of the word's usage by English speakers the world over, I think that it can become a profoundly prescriptive and undemocratic approach. Meanwhile, I've come across people claiming that the Holocaust wasn't racist, because the victims were white. I've also come across people who believe that the Holocaust was racist, on the grounds that it was influenced by colonial racial science, but who refuse to apply it to the Bosnian genocide. The fact is that European antisemitism has far more in common with ethnic tensions in the Balkans than it does with colonial racism. The idea that racism only exists when created and reinforced by extant power-structures seems very Anglocentric, and with English being the world's most spoken language, I don't think that American academics and journalists have the right to prescribe a definition for such an important political term.
Uhm, not trying to be weird, but since when did jewish people(ashkenazi I assume) begin calling themselves white and since when did white people recognise jewish people as white? Or is that an American thing?
@@Varkhal218 I'm not so sure about what it's like on the Continent, but the vast majority of British Jews consider themselves white and I'd say that the vast majority of white people also consider Ashkenazi Jews to be white. They've sometimes talked about adding a 'Jewish' option to the ethnicity question on the census but it's been met with opposition from the Jewish community. Research has suggested that a high proportion of British Jews with no religion actually don't mention their Jewishness at all. As far as statistics are concerned, they're white British/white other people with no religion.
@@davespiller684 Idk, I suppose its mostly a continental thing. Here in continental Europe we dont really consider Jewish people to be the same race as indo-europeans(aka whites) since they are semitic, we dont consider them "white" and they themselves are usually of the belief that ancestrally we have diffrent origins but we also recognise that they have been part of the European population for a long time now. Not that race matters, but hey. If we are going to get into the tehnicalities of meaningless aspects, lets do it right!
@W Shiflet true
@@macmcskullface1004 But why do you have to create an exclusive and prescriptive Western-centred definition of racism in order to examine the particularities of some types of racism?
"Why should we bother to reply to Kautsky? He would reply to us, and we would have to reply to his reply. There's no end to that. It would be quite enough to announce that Kautsky is a traitor to the working class and everyone will understand everything."
-Vladimir Lenin
Since Badmouse made a video first, wouldn't he be Kautsky? Also, this just seems like a thought-terminating argument? "I don't have to reply to you, I'll just call you a traitor instead". Okay, cool, stay in your echochamber I guess?
@@TheMrMacintosh Plus the implication is that Vaush is a traitor to the working class, which, even if you think his behaviour in the PF debate was bad, you'd have to do a lot more to justify.
@@jadegrace1312 He is, he is a shill compromising a possibly rising leftist movement in America to the fucking dems, not to mention an abusive, creepy, not-so-smart narcissist. Shame too, he had some ok content at the beginning.
@@Varkhal218 If you think he's compromising the leftist movement to the Dems, you should actually watch his stream some time. He is constantly critical of the Democrats and advocating for socialism.
@@jadegrace1312 I used to be a member of his audience, I know his positions very well.
I dont know in what world do you live in, but criticising an institution, organisation or even system is not exclusive to strenghtening and empowering it. Virtually every organisation, desirable and undesirable, can co-opt and incorporate criticism, insubordonation and even pseudo-rebellion within its sphere of influence as long as the antagonistic element is not genuinely subversive, and denies the legitimacy of the very foundation upon which the organisation's existence is based. Hell, sometimes even genuine radicals can be co-opted.
Oh, or were you under the impression that you, supposedly someone who wants to fundamentally change our state of affairs at the very roots, is supposed to take at face value what the propagandists of this very social order tell you are the proper channels and ways in which you can achieve that?
1:00 you forgot mayo warriors
Thank you for teaching me this
Thank you for coming back. I missed you as a content creator. I know that you might not want to hear this, likely for the same reasons you left in the first place. I also know that this might be a short lived revival, but I have followed you since the beginning, and you have always been one of the most genuine, good faith, and all around amazing TH-camrs that have ever graced the platform.
Yeah, praising the nation of islam, a group that would see me dead, was pretty amazing. He's a terrible person.
@@jakublutek9361 A+ listening comprehension skills.
Good faith? This man has worms in his brain
BadMouse's evolution has been excellent. Thank you, sincerely, for actually trying to spread such reasonable socialist thinking. I don't agree with you totally, on every point, but that is besides the point.
Imagine calling yourself a leftist and then defending bourgeois private property rights because decolonizing sounds too spooky and scary.
When did I defend that?
@@BadMouseProductions they were referring to Vaush, I think.
@@BadMouseProductions I'm talking about Vaush. I love your vids btw
@@RB939393 haha
@@BadMouseProductions mister badmouse, if you aren’t a Maoist, what are you?
Vaushite challenge: type a paragraph without the following words/phrases
-Bad faith
-Uncharitable
-Out of context
-VDS
-Touch grass
-Tankie
Oof, sorry, can’t do it
Add these to the list too:
-Nuance
-Moral
-Authoritarian
-Age of consent
-Democratic
It's just weird how all his minions go all round the Internet repeating the same phrases like robots. I mean most of them are 14 but still
@@shenbapiro1291 hey, have you seen CasP theory
@@shenbapiro1291 facts, it’s reactionary and despicable
I would disagree with the econd point in essence, but not in principle. Sometimes "lending a hand" is just "lending a hand". For example here in germany women protested against a certain paragraph in german law that makes abortions illegal.
I can't really walk with them and chant "my body, my choice!" because it is neither my body nor my choice. I'm a dude-broy looking guy, who pretty much feels like a male human being. I also did not coorganize the protest because, again, I didn't think it was my position to do so.
But hell, when the protest happened I took a security vest and I tried to get the motherfucking evangelical counter-protesters out of the picture. As far as i could.
"Allowing more space" isn't about beeing complacend, it's about fucking being there where you are needed, which is easily determined by asking the actually organizing people where you are needed, because organizing people often want allies if these allies are not only there to make a ego-trip out of it.
Even if I don't think that the point here was "I'm at higher point in society, so I just keep out of it", I just want to make clear that this is a shit attitude to have.
Most of the time you can be supportive without making the cause your own and you can do that through asking the organizing people directly "what can I do?". And if they tell you something, you are there on time and do it, be it security or be it helping to paint posters. If they tell you to fuck, then you fuck off. That whole thing is actually pretty easy.
Everytime someone says "I'm an ally of abortion but I can't reproduce " fail to understand how bodily automony affects us all, and we can understand how being forced to put something in your body is bad. You fight for something you are affected by, even if it's not explicitly same object. At the same time, your sense of fear of having something ur body vs a women is why they are more willing to come out for protest than you are, so depending on you over a women would be risking the movement, which is precisely what happens when we talk about black/indegnious people or history of communism
You definitely said it very well, I used to essentialize before I knew any better (I'm a minor) and it did more harm than good for both me and the people around me, this idea that we have to follow things either far away or so close in that were choking the movement genuinely isn't healthy, people can be genuine, nice and critical of others and wish to make a better place for each other, it's not about who's farther on the scale but more so" who needs help, do I need help? Can I help in this way? Or this way? Is this helpful to me when I need help?" Etc cause bodies are vessels and we can do alot with them aslong as we take care of ourselves, including talking more and educating about how over essentialism and pain wars can do more harm than good, I genuinely enjoyed reading what you wrote as it was very well put
@@muhammadsaqeeb5298 not exactly, there's a very specific issue going on with purity testing and aggressing people who "don't do enough" which is bad when you aren't exactly aware of how much you can do, yes it's good to join into protest but not everyone can always show up, and forcing and aggressing them won't help, people get more drawn away from each other when trying to compare situations however that doesn't mean people are aware of someone's particular situation, getting mad at people though it's easy will drive them away, and though it sucks that they cannot understand on a personal level, they won't be able to understand you if you don't understand that they may not be able to show up for protest, or they may not have money to donate, there's a tong of many small but decently helpful ways to be activists that build over time, and this isn't saying people are bad etc for expressing their emotions, however there is a line that people need to recognize, it's not healthy for their own health either, cause I used to do the same thing watching my trans community members needing help with low funds, it hurts, it's painful, but putting that on people who could seriously help us will stunt the help we do get, and I'm not saying you have to thank anyone for activism by the way, I'm just saying it's important to recognize both realities, that intersectionality is extremely important especially when there's more power in numbers and union, and I don't think it's alright to just let people go off, sometimes just hitting them up and letting them vent is better if your safe to go out of your way to do that, I know I'm safe enough to do it at times and I try my best to listen and encourage or give whatever I can, cause that's so much more helpful
@@aza3921 dude... what I'm saying is the solution to what ur talking about. I'm saying you can understand, you can be more involved just by understanding how the struggle affects everyone. It's not being angry at others suffering its about developing ur views so you find the value in supporting one's cause and making it your own. If you can see a protest today as a better future for you tomorrow you'd be more willing to put ur time into it. Don't say some struggles you can't understand, if you care enough, listen until you feel it's necessary for YOU to act. Bc if you don't then like you said you will spending ur resources and time helping another cause without ever putting resources in ur own struggles.
if you ask organizers (esp marginalized women and women of color) where you are needed, you’re actually making them take on more labor and lose their focus trying to make sure you The Good Male have a place in all of this. next time just respect women’s rights and stay home. it’s their action
I'd also say as an Irish person in the U.S. who's family came here a lot more recently than most other people here, we're totally not off the hook. Even though Irish people are colonized, when Irish people became Americanized like 100-200 years ago we gained all the social and economic benefits of settler colonialism and in many cases weve become the foot soldiers for an ongoing settler colonial project.
As an indigenous Amerikan, I do consider ourselves to be an existing pan-nation much like Afrika. I think a nation can have smaller nations within it. Just my take.
idk man i disagree but i think unity between tribes is much more important than agueing over dumb stuff like this(i’m not saying ur arguing i just know a lot of poeple would argue about something dumb like this and that’s silly)
Thanks a lot for the book recommendation. Great read, I read it in a day! I hope more white leftists from the imperial core approach this text and stop being so annoying and patronizing to us leftists in the third world, and finally become an asset in our struggle for liberation instead of a hindrance.
Nice An Inspector Calls reference at 6:50, very applicable play in this regard lol
I found this video and your previous video quite insightful. As some one who used to be more of a Vaush fan and still follows other people adjacent to Vaush I do like to see some more reasonable criticism of him than what I usually find on most other leftist places online.
This channel and BadEmpanada has been really helpful for me.
LOL this is silly most working class people and women dont even consider themselves oppressed, yet you want people to segregate into groups and fight for social justice independently. In these times we need the broadest possible coalition, not division.
@@PoliticalEconomy101 I actually don't agree with either side here 100%, I was simply commenting on the criticism of Vaush, if you're reply was directed at my comment specifically.
@@PoliticalEconomy101 its great being labour aristocracy, isnt it?
No its not actually. Its hard work to get working class Americans to fight for socialism. You should try it rather than be a free rider.
It's like if sargon was role playing as a leftist
So your definition of racism is constrained entirely by power relations, rather than the more colloquial usage as a synonym of bigotry or prejudice? ok that makes the whole "you can't be racist to white people" thing way less stupid, although would probably clear up a lot of misunderstanding if people defined how they are using the term in contrast to individual prejudice (systemic vs individual or both). So by this definition, you literally can't be racist against the dominant group in any country right? e.g. I can't be racist to black people in Ethiopia, or to Han Chinese in China, since both the power structure and culture are dominated by that group. Is that correct? seems weird but ok.
By their definition it seems that a white person can not be racist to han Chinese in China but being prejudiced to them is upholding white supremacy. This is consistent but unhelpful I think.
He's a dedicated leftist, he sees everything through the lense that is power relations
Ey, You mentioned Costa Rica :)
Pura Vida.
cheers for the plantation link, interesting read
17:00 (Arrivants) White people were often forced to immigrate because of religious persecution or economic violence. What matters is how the white identity and racism have developed since then.
Many people mistakenly think that what matters is deciding which US nation is the "good guys." That is utterly irrelevant. What matters is the economic and ideological structures that divide the working class by "race", and how to undo them. Chauvinism means burying the contradiction and defending or denying ongoing material injustice. Not only is that immoral, it allows the problem to fester and become more pernicious and ultimately more divisive. A vulnerability neglected in principled line struggle and economic organising alike, that our class enemies can and do exploit.
Arrivant doesn't mean just people who leave for reasons in their country, its about migrating to a country because of problems that have been caused BY that country. At least that's one of the reasons.
And the Irish and Italians and so forth became accepted into the dominant common group, as thus they are for all intensive purposes viewed as White.
@@BadMouseProductions intents and purposes
“Consistency for consistency’s sake” is a great way to describe the tendency that was handed down from Destiny to Vaush.
On racism, though: Is it not reasonable to define racism as being of two different types, system and interpersonal? That distinction has a lot of utility, since people have conscious intentions but systems don’t. And psychologically, racial prejudice isn’t really different based on the race of the person with that prejudice, so wouldn’t the most effective definition of interpersonal racism include all racial prejudice?
@@fun_ghoul that’s not remotely similar.
You do realize you can be a leftist and acknowledge that individual beliefs and actions exist, right?
@@fun_ghoul are you fucking with me
i think the reason academics started referring to inter-personal “racism” as prejudice is bc saying “x is racist against whites” kinda undoes the utility of making the distinction between the systemic and individual. if the word we use to describe,say, bias in the criminal justice system is the same word we use to describe some guy getting called cracker, we’re kind of watering down that word aren’t we? it would seem like there would be more utility in calling interpersonal racial bigotry something else entirely (prejudice)
@@scumjones yeah I think this is the really interesting discussion to have about it. I think you have a good point, but the utility of what you’re proposing is reduced because of the need to create a whole new term. The framing of interpersonal vs. systemic is more practical because it maps onto most people’s existing conception of racism. So if you say black people can’t be racist against white people, most people (in the US and probably the UK) will think you’re a moron, because to them racism is racial prejudice. But if you say “sure, black people can be racist against white people. It just doesn’t matter very much, because black people face systemic racism,” you’ve got a foot in the door, and the other person is starting to consider systemic issues.
“Most people” Oh you mean those intellectual titans in the Us/UK who deny systemic racism exists? Lol this debate isn’t about logic or semantics it’s about feelings aka white people’s feelings of the gradual dismantling of this racial cast system created to benefit them. “interpersonal racism” is just white copium. As stated before if calling a black person the N-word is not the same as calling a white person a honkey then by default they are different and So it only makes sense to use a different word Prejudice.
Comparing between the history of the British Isles and colonialism is a difficult thing to do, because the two things are very different in terms of their present and historic manifestations, but also have very salient similarities and are meaningfully connected. Most people aren't really good at dealing with that sort of complexity.
The Anglos committed a pretty brutal genocide against the Roman Britons when Rome Fell. It was definitely the worst genocide of the fall of the Western roman empire and the clearest case of Immigrants murdering the natives. There is no trace of the romance languages in Britain like you will find in France, Italy, Spain, ect. But in Britain, civilization was basically deleted from the Island until 1066.
No shit, the potters wheel disappeared from post-Roman Britain. The Anglos didn't even know how to make pottery.
@@genericyoutubeaccount579Anglos didn't know how to make pottery is one of the stupidest historical takes I've ever seen.
We have archological evidence of Anglo saxon pottery.
Yeah it can be hard, because backing one's leader and parasocial community feels good, but ya gotta stay critical and self examine and dare to give up that comfort.
Shouldn't've just assumed Vaush's community is as uncritical of him as the average yt community to, ironically, defend your parasocial relationship.
@@aspacelex haha I didn't defend anything. I spoke from my own experience as I think it could pertain. You assumed. It's all good.
@@aspacelex He didn't say he was uncritical of this creator, wdym. I like Vaush but this persistent debate on hypotheticals is pretty much needless. Regarding the three of the creators involved I should conclude: "both bad"
@@aspacelex The joke was good tho. Slapped a like for ya
@@revelationreflection Yeah it's all good, you had no way of knowing his community is extremely critical of him.
I'm so happy to see people like you and John the Duncan speaking up about this. I used to watch Vaush, and I noticed that he ran down Robin DiAngelo without understanding anything about what she teaches, but I thought this was just a misunderstanding that could be cleared up if he understood the truth. After the "debate" with Lua, I realized that it was far more than that. I can't watch him any more because it's clear that he doesn't understand what patriarchy and white supremacy are - maybe he understands theoretically, but you're completely right that he doesn't understand that ending these things means white people and men need to step back and be willing to let someone else take charge. It just makes me depressed because I still like Vaush as a person, and I'd like him to be on our side, but I don't get the feeling he's open to that. He complains a lot about the left rejecting people who aren't "pure" enough, but, in reality, he's the one rejecting the left because he can't let go of his superior position in the hierarchy.
Perfectly worded take! I think that he doesn't even understand that he has a larger than average audience by virtue of appealing to these white men who want to be in charge or at least feel like it.
Although I think that most of the left rejects him because of that, too. His takes make sense, and you have to be extremely bad faith to consider him meaningfully hurtful to other movements. That's why I don't particularly like this take as well. The left needs "exposing" videos in this condescending manner as little as we need 3-hour-long semantic debates on why this hypothetical is bad.
@@fun_ghoul you're literally king Midas but in reverse. Touching a golden take with your shit-stained hands
Imagine defending Robin DeAngelo and then criticizing other people for liberalism.
@@fun_ghoul Who told me to hate him? If you think I'm a Vaush fan you are mistaken. They are both anti class reductionist liberals.
For me, the "Vaush tipping point" began when, shortly after Contrapoints was supposedly "cancelled" by so-called "wokescolds", he went off on this very weird, tone-deaf, talking-down-to-trans-leftists rant, and I'm just like... "the fuck?" Like, one is certainly free to criticize the "cancellation", but Vaush eventually took it *way too far*, and his response to the controversy started to feel like, in some ways, to me, "just another anti-SJW rant", rather than a nuanced, thoughtful leftist response. Like, here's this cis, white male telling *trans people* how "they're allowed to feel" about certain potentially-offensive talk about 'being trans' and whatnot. It just left a bad taste in my mouth.
To be quite honest, the bitching about "wokescolds" can easily descend into *stale anti-SJWism w/ another name* if unchecked. that's why I'm very iffy on the term, from the get-go.
I mean... are there some egotistical people on the Left who can be perhaps be described as "wokescolds", at least insofar as that term connotes, "A leftist who is very 'holier-than-thou' in their approach and gives no one else the benefit of the doubt for not being 'uber-woke' right away"?
Sure... but it's hardly a 'huge fucking problem', from what I gather, as people like Vaush seem to think. It's probably little more "a problem" than the so-called "SJWs" of yesteryear that certain folks were bitching about nonstop from 2012 or 2014 onward
And then there are *other* times, every once in a while, when he, like... *gives incels and manosphere some weird "benefit of the doubt" and, say, uses very-spurious "evidence" to say, "Well, a lot of what they say is shitty, but.. they still KIND-OF HAVE A POINT!"
Not really...
And the cringey way he occasionally tries to be this weird, "edgy leftist" makes my stomach churn. Like... remember a while back when he would constantly whine about "gatekeeping on the Left", esp. by so-called "wokescolds"? And it's like, "DUDE... read the fucking room! Marginalized peoples have no 'obligation' to give some IMMEDIATE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT to FORMER NAZIS AND REACTIONARIES who claim to suddenly 'be real leftist' because it makes some white folks (and, of course, those 'former' reactionaries) uncomfortable. They have every right/reason to be guarded, esp. if those 'former' reactionaries still say a lot of the same shitty stuff they used to." Big whoop... Be uncomfortable until you figure out HOW TO BE A BETTER COMRADE, esp. toward marginalized folks
Being "leftist" doesn't give someone a pass to be shitty, or say really-shitty stuff that further contributes to marginalization, oppression and the like, esp. on a society-wide scale. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of those "former" reactionaries Vaush claims to have 'converted' are, to one extent or another, something along the lines of 'dirtbag left' assholes, rather than full-scale leftists who appreciate things like intersectionality, in addition to the importance of class struggle and the like.
I'm totally gonna read The Progressive Plantation thanks for the recommendation
Tankie
@@jamesrostein8643 The Progressive Plantation is literally an anarchist text
"Black people say. White people DO."
-- Paul Mooney on racial segregation
I just today learned about the colonial concept of Blood Quantum Laws and their relationship present day systemic racism.
Blood Quantum is so insidious. The US government used it to rob indigenous people, while on the other hand used it in reverse to deem anyone Black (in that case the one drop rule)
Not just the US, it’s a huge issue in Canada as well.
How on earth did anyone get the idea you were supporting NOI when you literally used them as an example of a reactionary manifestation of nationalism of oppressed groups?
People wanna view them as this monolithic bad guy that has no history or complexity to why that is.
@@BadMouseProductions I don't know why it's so hard for some people to just say "I don't really agree with it, but I understand the need/sentiment for it or why it exists". 😔
Happy to see you back & esp on this topic, tbh. It's needed.
@@JaseekaRawr sugar coating the group that murdered Malcom X is cringe.
@@BadMouseProductions I mean if you say that TNI is significantly different from WS when their political goals are so similar that TNI that they work with white supremacists then I don't know what to tell you. You are literally downplaying what is essentially Nazi political goals because they switch out black for white.
@@seanjacobson3653 I think his point was that despite being generally terrible, they help black people with oppression they legitimately face on racial lines while white supremacists don't and can't do this for white people, and instead reinforce the favorable positions they already hold or oppress minority groups.
13:35 did he just...forget what scandinavian nations did and still do to Sámi people or what
The Sami are one of the few indigenous groups still in Europe, and thus are subjected to a history of repression based on that.
The Polish have also been massively discriminated in my country and others, but these are based on their ethnicity, not the fact they have pale skin.
@@BadMouseProductions yeah true
@@BadMouseProductions "The Sami are one of the few indigenous groups still in Europe, and thus are subjected to a history of repression based on that." All other European peoples just airdropped in from somewhere or what?
@@timstrasser7448 Like he said in the video (well, more or less), "indigenous" as it's used generally implies colonized.
While not false, it would sound weird to call, say, ethnic Germans in Germany for instance, an "indigenous group" (as opposed to just calling them "native").
@@satqur I guess that does make sense and my confusion probably stems from the fact that english is not my first language.
Unrelated but I love your pfp and name!
I appreciate the advice on stepping back, it feels like one of those things that should be really obvious but still needed to be said.
Vaush's response really exposed how non sincere he is to the matter. He reacted to your first video as if him shutting up, listening, and supporting people of color was advocating to segregation, but what that reveals is he felt removed from the ability to be on top of the situation, in control just like the anti-feminist friend analogy.
I generally do agree it's important to know when to shut up and when to speak. I myself personally (as a mixed race dude) have learnt to be conscionable about the verbal space I am occupying within an irl discussion. I have learned to value concission, precision and space in my rhetoric to achieve effective dialogue. I believe this tactic works for everyone regardless of privileged standing. Sidelining oneself in of itself is not the answer to engage in effective decolonial and anti-racist dialogue and praxis. I don't think marginalization in and of itself should be a rationale for sidelining perspectives from privileged majority demographics (i.e. white, cishet males). I think taken to its extreme, the notion of 'passing over the microphone' taken to extreme results in identity opportunism, the type seen when Zionists weaponize antisemitism against Palestinian allies or ciswomen who use the charge of sexism against trans woman who "counterfeit" themselves as women.
@@ex_orpheus1166 No he’s dead wrong on this point more than the others. Black people(me included) would not benefit from people “stepping back.” This is what allowed racism to continue openly in before the civil rights act and in the background since then. We need people with power and resources to come beside us and help us.
Looking at the feminist analogy should tell you that. How often have you hard “Men need to teach boys how to treat women and not rape.” Well am I supposed to step back or a, I supposed to do something? If I see a man at work being misogynistic should I do something or step back?
The real thing you should do with your position is to back learn from the group and reinforce what they’re doing. If it makes sense. Slaves were fighting against slavery since it became a thing. Obviously. Abolitionists came beside them and used they position to help. If we’re a marginalized and disempowered group that literally means that we have been systematically stripped of any power , or a lot of it, to make changes, so we can either slowly build power or decades and suffer in the meantime or we can just come together and work towards a common goal. Try your best not to jump out and assume you know what to do but completely stepping back is no good for anyone.
@@ShabazzTBL _'How often have you hard “Men need to teach boys how to treat women and not rape.” Well am I supposed to step back or a, I supposed to do something? If I see a man at work being misogynistic should I do something or step back?'_
Surely the equivalent to your feminist analogy would be "White leftists need to teach their white peers about anti-racism and decolonisation", which is exactly what PF and BM are getting that. I.e. In most circumstances, white people should be "stepping back" from critiquing and policing black/indigenous led discussions and instead focussing on engaging with the reactionary takes in white communities, especially given that much like the men in your feminist analogy, white power structures are where the most work needs to be done.
@@OnYourMarx You can’t just superimpose what I say in one situation onto another. That’s not how that works. The equivalent would be me giving a suggestion that would contribute to dismantling white supremacy in whatever way they can. That can include education if they are themselves educated.
The idea that white people can’t critique what they see as a bad idea if it comes from a minority is BS.
There are several reasons why I believe this. Minorities CAN have bad ideas when it comes to what should be done. Do you think we all have the same ideas? Or how come white peoples are able to reject my stance towards PF? I’m a minority that disagrees with her stance. Do wait people have a place to tell me I’m wrong? It seems completely arbitrary who people go with based on personal bias. People are taking PF’s side because her argument was with a white guy and even though another black person disagrees they’re biased to her argument already so now they can reject mine as being the argument of the white guy. This is literally the arguments I’ve encountered. No one has been able to address the argument I’m making without claiming it’s a white supremacist perspective. There’s no explanation that’s why.
Second is that I just want good ideas and advocacy no matter where it comes from. Some people seem to think it’s better to defer to a minority with a bad argument than a white person with a good one. How does that help us in the long run? Unless we’re talking specifically about lived experience there is no more weight to the logic of a minority and a white person. I can have experiences that they don’t have but still be wrong in my approach to policy or organization. Again different black people can similar experiences but different answers for how to address it. We can’t all be right.
Lastly silencing white allies from sharing their perspective not only causes us to miss out on potentially good ideas but also we miss chances to correct misconceptions. If Vaush was wrong in this conversation the correct response is not to pull rank and say “I’m a minority and youre white, you can’t disagree with me.” No this is a moment to teach, and before you say “minorities don’t want to have to teach all the time.” If you’re having a convo like this you should be willing to or don’t have the convo. Instead she called him racist and a white supremacist. Even when Heem pointed out all the tangible good he has done for us she still said he was racist for rejecting HER perspective. That’s fucked up and frankly it’s stupid. People are claiming he’s bad faith and not an ally but even if he was wrong here he’s done plenty to show that that’s not true and the correct response would be to have a dialogue. Bad faith is dismissing him as racist because he thinks you’re wrong. That plays into the hands of reactionaries too. They claim that the left won’t allow white people to speak and y’all are making it true.
White people will go on TH-cam and tell other white people to segregate from black people like they’re special pokemon and then pat yourselves on the back for it. No hate just find it funny. VDD
Dude I am still struggling with Vaush fans who's brains can't get past the fact that supporting self determination has nothing to do with "supporting deportations/genocide".
I am shocked with how belligerent these folks can be.
I think the thing they're trying to get at is "yes, self determination, but that's not carte blanche do do anything you want"
@@DrippyWaffler No one says that though
@@DrippyWaffler Imagine projecting things like mass deportations and genocide and using that as a rational for denying nations their autonomy. All the while sitting comfortable in nation which does both. Wonder why you get so hung up on that thing no one is talking about 🤔
@Cool Cat Your problems are of semantic nature. You want her to scream out from the rooftops that genocide is bad and that she's against it, but she doesn't have to. If a nation is able to self-determine and they decide to just kill off all the whiteys and be the black version of the nazis, what influence would her position have? Or anyone's for that matter?
That doesn't dismiss the idea of self-determination though. It's just a stupid game of what-ifs
@Cool Cat Way to dismiss the rest of my comment. Do you support illiteracy or something? Because you do.
Imagine *still* defending Nation of Islam because it "serves Black self-determination". Yeah, sure... Y'know, unless you're, I dunno... Black and LGBT... Black and Jewish... A Black woman...
Yeah don't think their self-determination is defended by them at all.
Oh also one of the comments you posted there was literally from a Black person and you basically just went all "Oh yeah well I know better than you." Jeez, so much for stepping aside for marginalized people, it's almost like your crowd is full of BS when you talk about that.
And let's not forget he threw Malcolm Do under the bus instead of stepping aside. According to him, Malcolm X becoming the best version of himself before dying doesn't matter, only when Malcolm X himself thought he was wrong did. When he was in the nation of Islam. But Malcolm X's entire story is about how he made mistakes and how he rose through the hate and racism of not only white people but also black people and truly came to understand humanity as a whole. It's also a story for Muslims on how he truly found Islam when he was brainwashed with lies by nation of Islam.
Hum going to Africa and the middle east and seeing black and white and brown people interacting as equals changed his worldview for the better and he saw the multicultural cosmopolitan world that could be a reality everywhere. And this idiot is negating all that to make his stupid points but then claims he and other white people should step aside. This guy is racist towards white people and tokenizes black people.
That was so wild to me I knew this guy had shitty politics but that threw me for a loop
Why do you people keep saying this? He never defended NOI at all. In both videos he was pretty clear to anyone that wasn't purposely misunderstanding his point.
@@Gaff. yeah you didn’t watch the videos
@@FortuitousOwl If I had to guess, you didn't.
I think Progressive Plantation will be the next thing I read. I'm really interested in this subject lately. Cheers.
I feel this whole discourse could’ve been avoided if people actually read. The whole thing I see about “the essentialization of all white people as colonizers” is a topic Fanon addresses in the second section of Wretched of the Earth. The “colonizers” are simply those who side with the colonial regime and not the “colonized”. It’s just that historically, those who side with the regime, the “colonizers”, tend to be white. As the national liberation struggle progresses, the colonized discover there is more nuance to the colonizer-colonized binary. Some thought to be colonizers are willing to aid the colonized and understand them, and thus are closer to them. Some of the people thought to be colonized are in fact, good friends of the colonizer. So no, not all white people are colonizers, only the ones that side against colonized people and their right to self determination are. Also this whole “reverse racism” thing can be debunked by just looking at language. If white people can experience racism, then why is it that there are no words for white people equivalent to the n word, the c and g word for East/SE Asians, and the plethora of slurs for Hispanics, MENA people, and South Asians?
Just because there isn't a racial slur recognized by society for a race does not mean individuals of that race can't experience racism. It would just not societal racism? Instead it would be individual on individual or group on group racism.
You have to admit that a black guy calling a white guy "cracker" in a specifically demeaning way based off his race, is definitonally racist. Just not societally so.
Obviously there isn't the context of centuries of oppression and murder that the N word has compared to "cracker". But its still definitionally racist if used that way right?
You can be very racist without ever needing to use a slur, so why should the existance of a slur be what dictates if you can be racist towards someone? All this nuance you added on the colonizer / colonized dichotomy and yet you botched the landing
From a Wikipedia article on racial slurs separated by broader general ethnic groupings:
(TLDR: there are 25)
European
Ang mo
(Malaysia and Singapore) Hokkien for "red hair" referring to Dutch people from the 17th century and expanded to all white people by the 19th century, has become a neutral term in the 21st century.[81]
Barang
(Cambodia) any white person.[82]
Bule
(Indonesia) White people; literally, "albino", but used to mean any white person, in the same way that "colored" might be used to refer to a black person.[83]
Charlie
used by African Americans, mainly in the 1960s and 1970s, to refer to a white person. From James Baldwin's play, Blues For Mister Charlie.[84]
Coonass or coon-ass
(U.S.) a Cajun; may be derived from the French conasse.
Cracker
(U.S.) white people, originally and still particularly used to refer to poor white people from the American South.[85]
Farang
(Thailand) any white person.
Gammon
white people, especially older white men - based on the appearance of their faces.
Gringo
(The Americas) Non-Hispanic U.S. national. Hence Gringolandia, the United States; not always a pejorative term, unless used with intent to offend.[86]
Gubba
(AUS) Aboriginal (Koori) term for white people[87] - derived from Governor / Gubbanah
Gweilo, gwailo, kwai lo
(Hong Kong and South China) A White man. Gwei or kwai (鬼) means 'ghost', which the color white is associated with in China; and the term lo (佬) refers to a regular guy (i.e. a fellow, a chap, or a bloke). Once a mark of xenophobia, the word was promoted by Maoists as insulting but is now in general, informal use.[88]
Honky
(U.S.) a white person.
Haole
(Hawaii) Usually not offensive, can be derogatory if intended to offend. Used by modern-day Native Hawaiians to refer to anyone of European descent whether native born or not. Use has spread to many other islands of the Pacific and is known in modern pop culture.[89]
Hunky / Bohunk
(U.S.) A Central European laborer. It originated in the coal regions of Pennsylvania and West Virginia, where Poles and other immigrants from Central Europe (Hungarians [Magyar], Rusyns, Slovaks) came to perform hard manual labor on the mines.[90]
Mangiacake
(Canada) used by Italian Canadians for those of Anglo-Saxon or Northwestern European descent. Mangiacake literally translates to 'cake eater', and one suggestion is that this term originated from the perception of Italian immigrants that Canadian bread is sweet as cake in comparison to the rustic bread eaten by Italians.[91]
Medigan / Amedigan
(U.S.) A term used by Italian Americans to refer to Americans of White Anglo Saxon Protestant descent, Americans of Northwestern European descent, Americans with no discernible ethnicity, or Americans of non-Italian descent in general. Comes from Southern Italian pronunciation of the Italian word americano.[92][93][94][95][96]
Ofay
(U.S.) a white person. Etymology is unknown.[97]
Arkie
(U.S.) A person from the State of Arkansas, used during the great depression for farmers from Arkansas looking for work elsewhere.
Okie
(U.S.) A person from the State of Oklahoma, used during the great depression for farmers from Oklahoma looking for work elsewhere.
Peckerwood
(U.S.) a white person (southerner). This word was coined in the 19th century by Southern black people to refer to poor white people.[98]
Whitey
(U.S.) a white person.
Imagine defending Robin DeAngelo and then criticizing other people for being liberals.
@@ms6534 lol why do you want to be oppressed so badly? Reminds me of when the alt right was saying white men were the most oppressed
#DeEnclosure is a thing in Britain.
The only reason I feel like some white male leftist hate Chris Hedges is because he rails against exploitation in the porn industry. But thing is. So does Richard Wolff. I watch porn but they are talking about a very nuanced issue, that all pornography you view online, even if it is amateur is still made under exploitive conditions. You have no idea if it was made for blackmail or made completely against their will. The fact that a ton of people aren’t in communities or having relationships and turn to watching porn all the time is an issue, and shows a society that doesn’t really have a sense of community. Hence you get more freaks like incels and shooters. Obviously porn won’t be banned under socialism, but because people have more connections and a better sense of community, they won’t need to turn to such realistic pornography. That’s what people like Chris and Richard are saying. But whenever I ask someone who hates Chris why they hate him, it always comes back to “he’s a christian who hates porn REEEEE” ok… I need more info
I don't really hate Chris I've just found some of his points a bit off and I thought some people may comment telling me that.
the very production of pornography no matter if private or public is a predatory act. if they predate on lonely horny males or on naive young women is a difference of degree not of essence.
I'm pretty sure that a lot of porn is not at all realistic.
@@Senumunu what if it’s done as like erotic art or like commissioning an artist who does NSFW art or Hentai… never thought I’d bring this up on a leftist comment section. I make a lot of NSFW art in my free time with practice on human anatomy. And I have thought about making money off NSFW commissions cause I hate working at costco so much. Or at least building up a portfolio to work at a major animation studio or a comic book publisher.
@@Maxipanda6 i dont see that as an issue since it is not nearly as invasive.
Good complement to the first vid. Took me a few years to "sort myself out". Now I can calmly and socratically try and aid ppl in that position.
Thanks for clarifying the NOI point. It was the one worry I had with your last video, which otherwise was great
Yeah we must save them from themselves, you hear a lot of that when it came down to the colonization of Africa. As well as former Confederates, like Robert E Lee trying to justify Antebellum slavery after the Civil War by saying they're better off here than they were in Africa.
@@fun_ghoul yep it's all about the white supremacy. Something that used to be bragged about but now since it's often times criticized now we shouldn't teach that part of history. Just a whitewashed version of history.
@@fun_ghoul that's not always the case at the end of the Civil War the South even though they lost the war they got to write the history. That's what we got Lost Cause mythology from.
Vaush said the same thing during the debate with prof flowers oddly enough
@@grapeshot True
@@fun_ghoul they lost for that instance but like my grandfather told me, he fought against the Nazis and he told me Nazism isn't dead by a long shot and you must always be vigilant.
It's interesting when having a debate with a Vaush 'fan' because I think (and this is my own interpretation on the experiences I've had) that they immediately speak to you with the assumptions of coming at them with bad faith and hyperbolic.
And then you have to spend half the debate back tracking this assumption, and eventually you realize they're just waiting to stamp a generic 'I'm not the bad guy here, I support X people.'
Ever wonder why it is so *easy* to take everything Vaush says out of context? He's like low hanging fruit to mock arrogant white leftism.
And ultimately since he is trying to make money for a living doing this- there is no way he'd ever change up his formula for debating the left.
Give a year or two, and he'll be taking the 'red pill' with the amount of effort he wastes cherry picking.
What's the formula? What's a single indication he's a grifter?
@@fun_ghoul the old good "A socialist can't ever be successful in a capitalist society"
@@fun_ghoul ffs get over knowing one Russian word lmao
@@fun_ghoul it made much more sense to vote for Bernie in 2016, but in 2020 Biden looked like a safe solution to pushback against the progressivism in the country. In hindsight it was the dumbest fucking idea, I agree.
@@fun_ghoul Grifting is not when someone makes money, its when someone lies about their positions for money or attention etc.
I dig the video, but I don't see what you're describing in Max Blumenthal. After all, he literally wrote a book on the US' brutal history as a way to provide context about what the US is currently doing. Or are you saying he's terrible because he focuses largely on the US?
He's terrible because he tries to whitewash almost any government that is against the US no matter how shitty they are, just because they're anti American. If he were around in 1980 he'd probably be defending the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, just because it was denounced by the US.
I was looking for an answer from Bad Mouse, because while he may agree with this line of thinking, I don't want to misunderstand his statement. Also, I think Max and the Grayzone are one of the better outlets in independent media or news media in general precisely because they defend countries that otherwise wouldn't be defended.
@@peachypietro9980 Capitalist Russia, Iran, and Syria are not too defensible, unlike Cuba, and Venezuela.
@@jstevinik3261 I used to think so, too, but I changed my mind about five years ago when I learned how much I'd been propagandized to think of them as the "enemy." I have a more balanced view these days. No saints anywhere, and you can't throw the baby out with the bath water. 🤷🤷
@@peachypietro9980 Capitalist media is not critical of Russia's capitlaism and the Assad familiy's liberalization. These places do not deserve imperialist aggression buy not above Marixst criticism.
What would decolonization look like in the US?
I would be very curious to see what badmouse would say about this!
It would look like communism
Great two videos. I never watched you before you left but I like what I'm hearing
I feel like people are defending prof. Flowers because she is a poc, and it seems a little flippant and a bit patronizing.
As a black dude (had to throw that in there because my arguments don't matter otherwise), the way she talks seems fueled by spite for white people. While she quotes the BLM protester ("looking for equality not revenge"), she seems to be unable to respond to the worst example of a people's revenge.
Vaush asked her multiple times if genocide was wrong, she kept responding to it by essentially saying that she doesn't like it but people have the right to do it.
I think a few things after watching that debate:
1. The way she advocates directly harms the movement she is pushing for. Like it or not (and to be clear, I do not), in America and Canada, land back needs the support of white people. She is, for no reason mind you, dancing around the topic of whether or not natives have the right to genocide colonizers (*cough* white people in this debate). All she had to do was say, "no they shouldn't do that, and they shouldn't have the right to do that."
2. I have met black people like her, who say they want equality and freedom from oppression, but really want a black version of an ethnostate. I can't stand these people. They say they don't want revenge, but are seemingly waiting for an opportunity to have exactly that.
3. The topic of colonizer/colonized is quite clearly complicated and nuanced. I am not well versed on it tbh, and seemingly neither is she. She uses colonizer and white people interchangeably in the same way republicans use thug for black people.
4. Vaush gets a lot of flack for comparing people to Nazis (some deserved), but in this case, I think it's an apt comparison. If her expressed positions were followed I think we would end up with waves and waves of pointless ethnic cleansing of the 'pink skins. ' the clearest example of this is her inability, or more likely unwillingness, to engage with the parallel that vaush made with black crime. When black people steal, it's because of environmental factors. When white people do oppression, it's on purpose and inherent because white people are just like that I guess. The same way that Germans (arians) were down bad because of environmental factors (post WW1 economic drama), and Jews had money because they're spooky and slimy I guess.
5. And to address the "white people should sit down and shut up" aspect... If my choices for leadership/giving voice to/showing the public (or whatever you want to call it) in the context of land back or any other racially charged issue was vaush or flowers, I would choose vaush hands down. And she passed up 2 opportunities to plug other poc creators, on vaush's channel (which I guess I can understand with how contentious the Convo was) and on Hakeem's channel (which I understand much less). I'm sure her argument would be that it would open up the creators to waves of harassment from bigger channels, but this seems to be the climate on the internet in general. I'm typing a thesis on this creator's video, vaush gets a load of harassment, Hakeem, everyone you hate, and everyone you like do as well. It's not right, it's not fair, but it is the way it is at the moment. To be a creator, and especially a big one, means that you are going to face hate and harassment. That shouldn't be the case, but at least now days, that's the gambit you take for gaining a large enough platform to affect any sort of change (rhetorically).
6. She came off condescending in both debates. That's all for this one.
Now I have my own problems with vaush, but flowers does come off as a racist POS. I'm not an academic I use the term colloquially. I don't subscribe to the power + prejudice definition. My hope, is just that she is bad at adequately transmitting her ideas, because as it stands, I don't think we have the same goal (racial coalition\unity vs racial separation\seperate but equal).
On point 4, people need to remember that when Nazi comparisons are made, it's not always a one to one moral comparison. When she said that black people in South Africa should be allowed to remove colonizers if they want to, but insists that isn't genocide. When Vaush asks "isn't that what Nazis originally planned to do?", flowers can't answer and simply becomes enraged that Vaush would dare compare colonized people to Nazis.
THIS SHIT RIGHT HERE HOLY SHIT
Have you even watched her video on this. Shes not even a black seperatist herself lol. She got shoehorned into talking about it. And in the livestream she got money for a black anarchist and content creator called overthrow media. This is the only reason she finally agreed to go on the stream lol. If you have time to watch the hours long debate go watch her video on it as well.
If you thinks that colonized will people are gonna do a genocide you are a paranoid white supremacist and this what Vaush is and him just asking the question proves him guilty
@@hugodelphan8638 well the conversation wasn't about what colonized people were going to do, it was about what they have the moral right to do. And the fact that prof. Flowers can't just say that minorities don't have the right to genocide is telling.
I back minority movements 100%. If you want to defend reductive racists like flowers, that is your prerogative, but it is not mine. There are much better, far more effective, and much better educated people to speak on these movements.
I LOVE Lorenzo Kom’Boa Ervin, he taught me a lot about things like my own internal, unrecognized racism.
Dear God, you are literally a white liberal steretype
@@JacenSolo0 Seeing as I'm not liberal, I don't know what you're getting at.
@@DrAnarchy69 yeah you are
@@fun_ghoul no one cares
Here is how I practice allyship and it's worked out ok for me so far.
1. I learn enough about the subject that I can stand up to a standard issue bigot in a confrontation. Mostly I run defense of opportunity. Someone says something bigoted, I say that's not cool and I'm ready to say why.
2. I learn enough that I have some understanding of the group's viewpoints and struggles.
3. I purposefully pay attention to that community and listen for them to tell me what they need from me. I will rarely chime in on matters of function and strategy but purely as an advisor, not as a leader. I'll say it once and they'll do what they want with my words. It's not about me.
This was a much better video. I still have issues with it, but your view is much clearer in this than in the original, which was ripe for misinterpretation.
I don't think your original video represented Vaush's views accurately. Vaush's (very drunk) reply didn't accurately represent your views though either. So that was a bit of a mess all around. But this video is better.
Anyway, my issues:
Point 1 isn't really relevant. It's an argument of terminology. People can be prejudiced against white people, or even discriminate against them in certain circumstances. The issue with racism being about power is only relevant when you're talking about a person's lived experience in a society. If you're talking about individual choices, or even a specific organized group's choices, it's a terminology argument. A group going around killing white people in retaliation for colonialization is still bad, and still based on race, whatever terms you use. It might be a lot more understandable than the reverse. Criticizing it might even be missing the forest for the trees. But thing still bad. And saying thing bad is still not wrong.
Stepping out of the way is right and good whenever possible. But power dynamics do exist, and those with power can take actions to help. Not doing so is making the situation worse. This seems analogous to the argument that since current politics and capitalism is bad, we shouldn't use or engage with those systems. But it would be incredibly stupid not to use them to the extent that we can. One thing doesn't exclude the other. We need every tool at our disposal to have a chance, since success in our goals is extremely challenging.
And also, the desire to step out of the way doesn't mean you don't call out objective wrongs. If a marginalized person is not willing to denounce genocide, it's okay to disagree with that and point it out, even if you're a person with power disagreeing with a person with less power. In fact I've always been of the opinion that generally, not speaking up against such things is morally wrong. One look at history shows how passivity to such instincts has caused huge problems, and even if it's less likely to be enacted when it's a marginalized group, it's also not hard or controversial to say genocide bad.
I think a lot of this is a grey area. Vaush's ego does get in the way, and it's hard to not come across badly when disagreeing with a person from a marginalized group, AND when your ego is super clear, front and center in the way you're speaking. Tone does matter. But I have a much bigger problem with Vaush's tone than anything he actually was arguing. And I think ultimately Vaush's tone and behavior in interacting with others is the actual valid argument here, since much (even if not all) of what he said is factually correct and his real argument is in fact pretty simple and should be uncontroversial, if taken for what is intended and not twisted.
I agree fully with the America-centric point and the analogy related to that, and most other things I didn't mention. Blind spots are a big problem here.
I'll take a look at Progressive Plantation. I've seen for myself that racism is a problem in progressive activism, so I'm interested in seeing what he has to say. It will probably be upsetting, but useful.
“A group going around killing white people in retaliation for colonialization is still bad, and still based on race”
I for one think the Mapuche of Chile who burned down the farms and drove out the white colonizers who overwhelmingly supported the Pinochet dictatorship to be very based.
@@evilkhamzat That’s a misinterpretation. That’s the killing/removal of colonisers, because they’re colonisers. If that were the indiscriminate killing/removal of any white person, regardless of their position in society, then that’s where the issue comes in. That’s when it just becomes a genocide
With regard to the question of one-nation/many-tribes, much like in black nationalism, the nation is dialectically forged by its relation as a nation with the colonizer. As in Hegel's Master/Slave dialectic, they both only exist with regard to each other, and are created/renewed by the other's existence.
If someone can find a place to buy a hard copy of the Progressive Plantation I would appreciate it. I know I can just read for free but I like having tangible books I can read and also loan out.
I didn’t think you could do worse but you never cease to amaze me. Your opening argument is that because it’s not systemic racism it’s not racism. Almost as anti-sociological as “all oppressed peoples have the same interest and are one nation”. You saying that nation doesn’t mean country doesn’t change your attempt to completely erase the opinions of all the minority groups in the West just to make some 10 iq argument that we hate all white people and want an ethnostate. All while yourself being white. The patronizing racism literally can’t stop seeping through your pours 😭🤦🏾♂️
You also proved his entire point by mentioning Israel and Palestine but you’re so incoherent you didn’t even realize it LMFAOOOOOO
I understand that Europeans tend to receive very folklorized images of North American First Nations, but can you please try to not call us Indians? If you want to refer as a whole to descendants of those who inhabited the land before European settlers arrived, Native Americans, or First Nations, Metis and Inuit are the labels you probably want to use. “Indians” is really insulting.
It might be a good idea to follow your own advice about stepping back and letting oppressed groups speak for themselves.
Indians is preferred by many... and from what I've seen, /most/ tribes in the USA. The term has largely been reclaimed, but it varies on a tribe by tribe basis. Native American is actually less common, but is used by some. First Nations is a good catch-all, but even less common still. I think the lexicon in Canada is very different to the USA; at least that's my impression, though I don't have direct experience of that.
@@fun_ghoul Excuse me? My family is part of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe. I'm heavily involved in the Tribe, attend every General Council meeting. We go to powwows, and meet up with many other Tribes. We go to protests to support others in their struggles. These issues are discussed often. Most tribes in this part of the country use "Indian", and do not like "Native American". Though even individuals within the Tribe disagree on it, and tribes in other areas have the opposite view.
Who the fuck are you? You talk about respecting indigenous voices, yet you certainly seem to like the sound of your own. You're all over every comment on being an asshole to everyone. Maybe take your own advice (or at least Bad Mouse's), step back, and listen for once.
@@d_dave7200 Thank you for being the voice of reason
the last one wasn't that bad but this one was even worse.
Opening with "you can't really be racist towards whites" was just muah chef's kiss.
Glad to see you making videos
The word "really" belies the premise.
Of all the things I expected I certainly did not expect you to double done on defending the Nation of Islam of all things. They killed Malcolm X…also dude, it’s 2021. Not 2016. No one cares about thunderfoot or Anita Sarkeesian and I’m willing to bet a lot of fans of yours and vaush don’t even know who they are. It’s not 2016, have you genuinely not engaged in any online discourse since then? Or at least witnessed it? I will say I appreciate being introduced to James Baldwin debates, even though you don’t seem to understand what he believes. And I will definitely check out that essay.
as someone who was born in former SU state this is what was my gripe with the word Union. It was a union to the benefit of the white Russian, the language was unilaterally forced upon to be Russian. Kazakhstan at one point in time had more Russians than Kazakhs ( born in Kazakhstan. During the 1933 famines 5 million of Kazakhs died due to forced grain requisitions ONTOP of forcing Kazakhs who were nomads into farming even more. Not even the Tzars were as harsh on nomadic tribes and way of life. Why should Kazakhs submit to the way of life of the White russian urban male other than the Russian thinking theyre the rightfull owners of Kazakhstan because they are Russians.
And thats just Kazakhstan. Same repressions happened in Georia, Azerbajan, Baltics where the Union came at the benefit of the White central Russian populace living in Urban zones at the expense of ethnic languages which were not Russian.
This is what pisses me off with fellow socialist who did not experience settler colonialism because they are either a white Eastern European or a white russian lol
Heck European Union is not a Union. its a financial interest group thats led to the benefit of France and Germany.
my family is from soviet ukraine, i'm with u
European Union hasn't just benefited Germany and France, it's massively benefited virtually every country in it, see what happened to the UK when we left.
@@rorysparshott4223 true but for the smaller balkan nations and eastern europe it leads to brain drain
@@shriekinambassador5042 brain drain happens everywhere, there's plenty the EU provides that makes up for that though
@@rorysparshott4223 losing 30% of your population is not normal.
"I don't want to debate to someone who talks like this"
*Immediately agrees with his point and argues for it*
This video was even more incomprehensible than the last one. Honestly I don't think he's going to debate anyone, not because of their 'tactics', but because Mouse is incapable of making a coherent point.
If this is somehow incomprehensible to you, maybe you need to leave your cult.
@@Dorian-lq3up There literally is never a good outcome to calling someone brainwashed or being in a cult, because their response is very likely to be "No you". Instead it's best to make an argument, a point, or at least gesture towards why one way of thinking is better.
@@ZepTheGamer forgive me, I must have misidentified the situation. Clearly it's your education that stops you from understanding such simple things. My mistake.
But go ahead make another shit argument. I'm sure it will be popular amongst you and the other cul.. fanboys...
@@Dorian-lq3up Are you good bro? I personally understood what was being said and I think there were terrible arguments being made here...
So as long as that stipulation you drew is met its's fine to disagree right? Or is there any no way to not be in the cult?
@@fun_ghoul Well for one imbecile! They disagree with daddy Vaush when has he EVER been WRONG! The sun doth not set on Vaush, just like the sun never set on Sargon to his goon squads..
So you're claiming Scotland wasn't colonised? Trainspotting disagrees.
that's systemic racism those are separate things
You absolutely can be racist to white people, but it isn't reverse racism and it isn't in any way oppressive here in the west (unless it's ever used to specifically suppress and individual which idk if it's be possible but someone could try) its not a bad thing to recognize that black people and other people of color can be racist towards white people, its however hard to understand that, and understand that regardless of that that black people and other poc face racism colorism and system oppression based on race which is a huge issue, however ignoring bits and pieces you don't like will not educate others on the reality situation, infact it can even risk people though having become anti racist falling off their beliefs cause they possibly felt misunderstanding and become even more isolated, that is a issues that's a big issue, if your getting into politics you cannot bad faith out of it you have to be willing to have good faith critique of people for them to be able to grow. I really don't like how you put this idea that decolonization is this idea of giving up literal homes to other people, NO that isn't decolonizing, decolonizing requires intersectionality and overall it's a individual thing each person must go through, and it made me genuinely cringe that you painted it as otherwise, land back also means land rights and protections back not "you bought a house you didn't know how proximate it was to being on ancestral land you must now give it over" that's not land back, that's not decolonizing, that's essentializing what it really is and as you say it's a much more nuanced topic you than go onto explain something that's extremely general, not nuanced, and completely misinterpreted, and it's genuinely upsetting to me as detribalized native, land back is extremely important and cannot afford to be talked about in such a generalized and miaconcepted way and at that, I'm not paying this video much more of a watch, I don't think I can, my dislike is just seeming to grow more as this goes, so I hope you change, I hope you learn, this really needs to be a topic you read more about until your near for sure on talking about it, especially with the sensitivity you yourself have noted on it
Cool video, I'm sure all the comments will be reasonable and fair minded
Sending good vibes BM, it's a thankless task but your content is very good, no matter what Vaush chuds say!
As a Vaush chud, I'm just saying black on white resentment is a thing and is NOT always a good one.
I'm going to have to admit, I'm pretty insulted at being called a chud. Like damn, isn't there anything else you could call us? I'm a fucking socialist. Like we are on the same team...
@@ryno4ever433 dem soc =/= socialist
@@Stephen-re4oy so no popular front?
@@BladeValant546 Not with vaushits
Racism isn’t some minority only thing. If I go to china or Japan can I no longer be racist against Asian people in that context? Systematic racism only affects non white people in America, but that doesn’t give anyone a pass to be unironically racist against white people. Let me remind you that systemic and interpersonal racism are different fucking things(and systematic racism can still be used against white people, but in America and western countries it isn’t). It’s honestly super fucking gross to see the anti racist side try and justify racism. Glad to see you’re trying to prove the right correct. Good job.
I disagree with the "step out of the way"-thing. I can't speak for other minorities, but as am woman I don't want men to step out of the way and shut up about feminist issues. I want them to be engaged, to talk to their buddies about it, to come to protests, to contribute their own perspectives and to advocate for change. I don't want them to follow some dogma of "yes, women are always right", I want them to understand the issues on a deeper level and to be actively be involved.
Mate he's literally just driven by hating white people and men because he believes that's progressive, for perspectives who agree with what you said, you should follow some actual progressives, like Vaush.
For sure, some have thought I'm saying don't help women and that's not what I'm saying. The issue is that in my experience a lot of the time men can often speak over women and like Chris Hedges said takeover the narrative that was made fundementaly for women. Like my girlfriend often finds it eyebrow raising when men only seem to get interested in women's issues when they're told it helps men too.
Its just why I don't really call myself a feminist even though I support all the causes, I just found whenever I wore feminist on my sleeve I just ended up being performative about it.
@@BadMouseProductions I'm sorry, but not calling yourself a feminist, because it might look performative makes no sense imo. The feminist movement does not benefit from that at all. My highest priority is for the movement to succeed and for that we need as many people as possible to call themselves feminist and to participate in the discourse. The reaction to recognizing you are being performative should be to do better, not to disengage. I get where you are coming from, but I don't think your approach gets us closer to gender equality. On the contrary it robs us of important allies.
@@verenaronja1153 but I'm not disengaging? I still engage in feminist causes, I just find it's a healthier way to be considering its a movement that isn't all about me anyway.
I'll be honest I don't really know what to say, if this is how the majority of people are interpreting my words I dunno if it's worth me keeping these videos up.
You very much can be racist towards majority populations. I don't know why you try to gatekeep the term to exclude alternatively valid usages of it, in this case general bigotry towards other ethnic groups. You view it through a lense of power and opression, which is fine, but at least recognize how other people use it. Vaush can be criticized for a whole bunch of things, this is not one of those things
The infantilization of race, by apologetic white people being oblivious to their irony: The ultimate ouroboros.
Is an alternative title to this video.
@@fun_ghoul neither is "black" then. No race exists, it's a social construct.
hey mouse, You prob won't remember the answer, but do you remember the "Welcome to Ancapistan" ?
In part 2 you mention a city called Sovietska (I think that's the name)
I just wanted to know if Sovietska was part of Ancompton or Ancapistan. The answer is prob obvious, but i'm not expert into politics..
But another question: Do you plan in reuploading the videos and maybe continuing them?
If you really wanna think the Nation of Islam serves black determination, that's on you dude. Really surprised you doubled down on this.
You didn't put attention in what he said, right?
Bad mouse said thst the nation of islam is far less harmful than nazis lmao
@@lana_del_Rei.neet- You do realize that doesn't refute what I said, right?
@@crishealingvtuber8626 it does because he doesn't say whst you think yiy heard
@@lana_del_Rei.neet- They literally worked *with* the KKK. Sure they're *less* harmful than the literally Nazis... but they're still harmful!
Did he really just come back just to give shit takes then dissappear again?
None of his takes were shit.
@@Psychedlia98 yeah shit can be used as fertilizer, his takes were useless
You do understand that words have more than one meaning right? Your definition of racism is correct but that's not the only definition of racism. Why are you only selecting the one definition that is agrees with your point so that you can poison the well of any conversation about racism towards other races?
the only reason there’s more than one definition of racism is due to the whitewashing/sanity action of history.
The concept of “race” was invented by white people to benefit white people and uphold whiteness (and who they considered “white” DID change over time).
The word prejudice is right there. Use that instead.
@@TheSassyRaptor "Prejudice" is too broad a term. "Racism" is prejudice against a racial or ethnic group, including white people. Deal.
@@phantomblot6072 race is a concept that white Europeans created and placed themselves and those like them at the top, so racism /inherently/ tries to maintain the supposed superiority of whiteness. Race and racism is and has always been specific and had been diluted over time (by whiteness) in order to maintain control over narrative. In order to maintain the illusion that we all have an equal chance despite the inherent authority of whiteness.
Can a person of color be prejudiced to a white person on the basis of their color? Can they be shitty to a white person on the basis of their color? Sure. It’s not automatically justified either. Does this cause this individual to lose their inherent privileges? No.
Can a disabled person be shitty and prejudiced to a non-disabled person? Sure. Is it “anti-non-disabled”? Fuck no, that’s not a thing either. Ableism doesn’t “go both ways”, due to the inherent privilege of not having a disability.
Please, I beg you, at least TRY and think less dichotomously.
“oh no, I have to make sure they know this is a two-way street otherwise marginalized people are gonna take revenge on me/people like me for being shitty to them” is such a pathetic stance
@@TheSassyRaptor I know about social constructs. You can't fight racism with more racism, that accomplishes nothing but fulfilling your revenge fantasy. Grow up.
Miss this channel
be prepared...
This is a classic! Glad your back!
Hearing Vaush say you were “defending” and “supporting” the Nation of Islam was so infuriating
I mean, his last video was inexcusable on that issue. I hate Vaush, but you can't talk about Nation of Islam and how they're not like white supremacists and not mention what Farrakhan and the NOI had to say about Jews.
Capital as power
Yeah they're pretty clearly a hate group, and even at times worked with the KKK towards a shared goal, *and* plotted the death of Malcolm X. It's inexcusable to bring them up in the context they did, and to not mention it, when it's expressly relevant to the point being made (that they do more good than harm, which is has not been substantiated)
@@MostlySoftware I have also read Wikipedia. Wow so brave.
@@alexcypher4794 In his own words:
“Pedophilia and sexual perversion institutionalized in Hollywood (read: being gay) and the entertainment industries can be traced to Talmudic principles and Jewish influence. Not Jewish influence, Satanic influence under the name of Jew.”
-Louis Farrakhan, Saviours’ Day speech, Chicago, Feb. 17, 2019
The fact that BadMouse skipped over that is just inexcusable and very inappropriate
Hakim likes this
So I'm at 10 minutes and 21 seconds and I'm looking at your analogy with Welsh independence and I'm all for Welsh independence. But what I believe Vaush questioned Flowers on was "don't the white people who live there have any say in what happens with the appropriated land, or is black nationalism only" black nationalism is when white man have nothing in South Africa"?"
The analogy with the Welsh is that people who live in Wales? (I hope I'm getting that right?) are mostly residents of Wales and have an interest there. If Wales went independent, would people living there have any say in what happened with that country? Or would there be some kind of purity testing to see if you are Welsh or if your ancestors were English and therefore you perhaps have had a privilege that lead to you having more of the Welsh resources?
Which is why Vaush asked about mixed race people? Are they colonizers? Or are they not? Do they have any say in what happens to them and the property appropriated during decolonization? Or can they be deported for being half-white?
What does the ancestry of a person in for example America actually matter morally? They all live there, isn't the goal to maximize human welfare for everyone and not really care much about whom they were born to?
And wouldn't allowing or not condemning a potential genocide in South Africa be a moral failing? Professor Flowers said its all up to the colonized people. And that it's up to them. But it's not just the colonized people who live there. There are people who live there who are neither colonized nor colonizers, but have inherited from potentially either? Wouldn't a child at 7 years old be neither? Even if they are benefitting of the wealth of their parents?
Or is it morally okay to genocide them too? Or ought we not to condemn that? (genocide includes displacement.)
Professor Flowers refused to condemn genocide, which is concerning, is it not?
I have been asking a specific question of the Flowers-Stans ever since they first had their "debate." Never, not once ever, has any of them answered this question. It is as follows.
"Are you okay with setting up a scenario where one group of people gets to do whatever they want to and with another group with no options ruled out, and without the affected group having any democratic say in the process or results?"
It strips all the specifics out of the issue because I got tired of them weaseling their way around their squishy definitions of colonizer vs colonized. It takes history, geography, race and skin color out of it and gets down to the basics, which is easy for me because I have consistent democratic principles. It's almost like, in the process of typing out a response, they realize they have walked into a trap and just cancel the response. That or they type out a long attempt at psychoanalysis filled with wild and incorrect assumptions about views I hold instead of answering. ANYTHING to avoid answering the question directly. And of course, merely asking for clarification is considered the same as an attack or accusation.
The whole problem is that it's a suspicious level of cowardice to basically say, "The "colonized" should be able to do whatever they want to and with the "colonizer." If it's genocide, then I wouldn't like it, 'cause that's like bad and stuff, but I really have no business actually preventing it so my hands are clean." Idgaf how likely or unlikely a thing is. I oppose undemocratic policy-making out of principle.
This deserves an answer.
To clarify. I'm not saying Vaush is perfect in every way. While it's very recent I was enlightened to it and am not entirely set, I have reason to believe his moral axioms are poorly grounded. But I do believe he argues well on this specific topic still.
@@alicesundelin3094 Someone finally made the mistake of answering my question, albeit somewhat indirectly, and basically exposed themself as an authoritarian and said they'd save democracy by destroying it... somehow? They are fine with undemocratic will being forced on a vast majority by a small minority, as long as it's the minority they'd prefer. And they wonder why there's concern.
bad mouse as a black Brazilian I have to say that you saying "latine" is racist because it doesnt respect my heritage and our views regarding gender, sex, self expression and language. Check your privilege dude and step aside. LOL Also your takes on Malcolm X, Baldwin and Nation of Islam are horrific dude. BIG YIKES.
If you are bothered by inclusive language, that's on you, but it's not racist.
Sincerely, from another latin person.
Latine is coined by native Spanish and Portuguese users, unlike LatinX, who thibk that it is assist for the neutral form to be the same as the masculine form.
"No colonial territories it britiain" you do say?
Northern Ireland is hard power colonialism, and souther is soft power but still colonized
But then there's the 3 other examples.
Scotland, Wales, and Cornwall
All with there own cultures, there own languages (in Cornwalls case recently rediscovered and actively being re introduced)
The Scots and Irish literally see themselves as being colonized, and even the Irish where enslaved!
Please please please please, some good points and some bad points, but your insistence on this single thing really fucking Irks m and some others, I'm not even of those Ethnicities and Nationanalties I just don't like blatant falsehoods.
@W Shiflet isn't weird a brit is saying the cultures around him aren't colonized when they are?
National territories?
There own language, there own cultures!
Ask a scot or an Irish person if they're colonized by the British or where colonized, you'll usually get a "yes"
Irish wherent even seen as "white" till INCREDIBLY recently
How he talks about it makes him sound...it just isn't right
He literally brings up Northern Ireland to contrast with Britain in the video
@@badhumor8566 he still makes a clear difference between them and other colonized lands
And I think the separation is somewhat unfair at times
He describes them as "territories" and says they aren't really "colonized" anymore
My problem is right there
Uh, Ireland is not and has never been a part of Britain
@@jidk6565 in his video he makes clear that when he says Britain, he means Britain (england, scotland and wales). Northern Ireland is a part of the UK, but it's not a part of Britain.
Oh no he is going to react to this while drunk again.
I fucking wish. Vaush only gets drunk when all the planets align.
Getting drunk is the only way to deal with these kinds of points.
god i hope so
"Tankie" is just "SJW" or "commie" for radlibs
I'd say no. Tankie is a meaningless term used by multiple people in many conflicting ways.
@@davochinomalo Exactly. This, SJW.
@@johnlonne7062 that's a very shitty and simplistic analogy, very common among those who use the word "tankie". Authoritarian doesn't mean shit btw, any state is "authoritarian". You have to know how or with what end use the authority. Then, you can have a better judgement
@@PC42190 "any state is "authoritarian"", I don't know if you missed something but people are generally talking about some states being more authoritarian not if they are authoritarian.
pickme
Saw Vaush's drunk response to you was titled "Tankie Sargon," which just proves he has absolutely no idea what he could even possibly be talking about.
Shit video will not get out of my recommended.
That’s how we know Ian had a nerve touched
Given that Badmouse uses the same smug tone and had the same problem of incoherently tying discontinuous arguments together, it wasn't an unfair comparison.
Well, found the liberal
Rich coming from professional pwner and debate-lord Vaush, as close to a 'leftist' analog to the old 'skeptics' and internet atheists as I can think of
Much love 🕉️♥️
[Poorly-edited gif of Scooby Squad unmasking a tied-up BadMouse, revealing a smiling Sargon underneath]
Yet Sargon opposes #landback abd portray wealthy White south African as victims (when owened land b/c of Apartheid).
"you've accepted a diluted, superficial form of racism but also systemic racism is the only type of racism" makes sense
1. You say that racism is institutional prejudice
2. someone else comes along that believes racism is just prejudice
3. you tell them they've accepted a diluted and superficial form of racism
Where is the nonsensical part?? Or are you just aiming for a gotcha without trying to think it through?
@@xxcoldsteelexx It's a "definition-based gotcha", popularized by the likes of *insert a transphobe's name* regarding the phrase "trans women are women"
@@xxcoldsteelexx bc they're ignoring all other forms of racism yet claim others have a poor understanding of racism
@@xxcoldsteelexx although I should say that racism has changed its definition to the detriment of the word's utility. What's the point of the word if you can't call out casual racism and instead should resort to the "you're superficially prejudiced against my features regarding appearance" (I know it's hyperbolic, but the distinction between racism and systemic racism is defunct, prejudice against white people, which is a thing, can't be called out properly, and overall the term becomes so US-centric that us Russians, for example, are gatekept from using it by virtue of there being second to no color-based institutional racism). I'm cool with it being changed but seems pretty dumb. Is the n-word racist then? It only alludes to previous power and doesn't reflect the current situation. It's prejudiced as fuck, but it doesn't do the harm if it doesn't come from an institution. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to one-up you, it just doesn't make sense to me personally.
@@jesusHchristofwellington they're not ignoring other conceptions of racism, they're explicitly addressing other forms and calling them diluted and superficial
I'm genuinely confused on claiming racism cannot happen to white people. If a group of people (let's say one person of each non-white race to avoid stereotyping) beat up a white person all while chanting, "We're beating you up because we hate white people. Your race is why we are beating you up!" Does the fact that this hypothetical person's (admittedly unfair) "higher status in society" make that not racism?
I completely understand power dynamics and that calling a white person a name is not the same as calling a black person a name, but I"m still not following how my above hypothetical wouldn't be considered racism.
(ps: really not being a troll, I'm legit trying to understand)
See my comments in the pinned comment.
I'm not gonna lie I'm just shit at explaining things
It is my opinion that racism doesn’t need to reinforce a institution but when it does that’s what people call institutional racism.
Vaush rad
i continue your legacy daddy i tell people to vote for biden and to open their own pencil factory and worker cooperatives i also condemn every major communist movement to ever exist.
3:30 More importantly, the slave/woman is not liberating herself from some abstract oppressor, YOU'RE the oppressor. "Stop oppressing" is how you "lend a hand". Then make your friends stop oppressing. Then if they ask something of you, do it. Not your way, it's not better, but their way. This shouldn't have to be explained btw, we all know what helping means when we're actually serious about it.
Ahh yes women in europe are oppressed you know instead of just thinking thats true go do some research and see that thats not the case they are in many areas privilaged.
@@Silver_Prussian Why are you talking about women in Europe?
@@Silver_Prussian Actually don't answer. I know why. It's because you have no counter-argument and so feel the need to derail the discussion. It's a pretty poor straw-man if you ask me.
@@sinekonata well arent you talking about western women in general
@@Silver_Prussian Obviously not. And when I say obviously, I mean anyone could tell, you included. So enough distractions, stick to the discussion or let's end it.
Oh no the VDS has progressed. Lets hope it doesnt become any worse.
VDS is just Trump Derangement Syndrome for Vaush cause you don't want him criticizing your cult daddy.
@@calebr7199 Bruh, Vaush is wrong all the time. I mean did you hear his take on outer wilds? I mean its good but perfect? pffft, no way.
But seriously, your fighting a straw man. I wouldnt feel too proud about winning.
Also gramaticly what you said makes next to no sense. It implies that vaush has vaush derangement syndrome, but you also imply that I'm the one that has it which makes me not want you to insult him? Like come on man. Clean up your sentance a little so it doesnt sound quite so deranged. (Pun intended.)
Also also. There wasnt really much to criticize here. Its basicly just a bunch of tone policing, and minor nitpicks, some of which Mouse was correct on. On the whole though? Pedantic at best. A waste of time at worst. For both Vaush and Mouse for that matter.
@@thedarkone246
TDS is what trump fans made up because they didn't like people criticizing trump. It's literally the same thing for Vaush. There is no such thing as tone policing, Vaush is just a white chauvanist.
@@calebr7199 I am well aware of the origins of Trump derangement syndrome. I'm saying the way you poorly translated that to Vaush was just that, poor and borderline nonsensical. Have some more pride in your speech freind. Also, tone policing is absolutely a thing. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing Its not hard to find this stuff out. If you dont know something just google it so you arent embarressed quite so easily.
Additionally you should consider elaborating slightly when you critise someone. Especially with Chauvinist, as not all aspects that fall under Chauvinism are equal. Such as a excessive patriotism is not in itself awful, even if it is indicative of conservativism, and generally being a dipshit.
@@thedarkone246 I hate youtube. I wrote 4 paragraphs, all gone.
Anyways I don't feel like rewriting all that I wrote but let me just get to my main point, pretend I responded to everything else you said, lol.
Vaush is basically falling down a kind of anit sjw rabbit hole only this time it's about black liberation and indigenous issues. He refuses to listen and does his own version of "tone policing" of black and indigenous people. Watch professor flower's response videos if you haven't already they're full of actual critiques.
imagine thinking racism is only manifested in mean words. jfc
Imagine racism and systemic racism are the same thing. jfc
Imagine critiquing a strawman.
@@descendantofartorias2067 What is he critiquing? I don't get it.
@@CthulhuTheory 🤣🤣🤣 where do you think racism comes from?
Your reply just confirmed the liberalism of this video
@@ryanmilliken5950 op is trying to say that racism is only prejudice plus power so a minority group with no systemic power cannot be racist against the majority group. Vaush believes (rightfully) that a minority group can be racist against the majority group but since op doesn't agree with this correct assessment op says that Vaush is saying that some minorities are racist just because they say mean things/ joke about white people.
do you have a link to Andrewism's talk with vaush?