So I wasn't going to get involved, but seeing as you so elegantly dismissed 800 years of Irish oppression as "lol, white people", I will. You're just demanding AdonisGksu put away his argument without addressing it, which has a very valid point. There is a very real atmosphere with a lot of groups of "division and hatred". Remember that video that surfaced a few days ago of that guy being kicked out of a public space for being white at a Black Lives Matter protest? What does anybody gain by division and hatred? It baffles me when I hear about "People of Colour only" spaces. Why would you ever want to promote segregation? What does anybody gain? Surely you're just increasing the rift between the two sides? Surely the goal of anti-racism is a world where nobody sees a "black person" or "white person" but just a "person"? It would be infinitely more productive to focus on the actual injustice that minorities face in the western world, rather than focusing on hating and barricading yourselves from people with a different skin colour than yourself. There is an argument I see thrown around a lot which concludes that a) White people are inherently racist and b) It is impossible for a non-white person to be racist. People who make these conclusions always point back to a system of power form which white people have benefited over hundreds of years. Irish people are, for the most part, white. We were under pretty tyrannical British rule for roughly 800 years. We did not benefit from any sort of "system of power" for that whole time, and yet, Irish people are still happily pushed under the blanket term of "racist white people." The model doesn't work outside of the United States, and is therefore US-centric.Put the tone argument away. What he's posted is not unrealistic, and you don't get to dismiss it as that because of its tone.
Dylann Roof was welcomed with open arms into a black church, and look where that got the churchgoers. The point of black-only, or POC-only, or women-only spaces is to feel a certain level of safety and be able to discuss one's experiences and perspectives without having white people/men dominate the conversation. Usually whites/men do this without even realizing it besause they are just used to their own entitlement. I have to agree it'd pretty absurd. Some of the most extreme ugliness I've seen was between Asians and blacks.It baffles me when I hear about "People of Colour only" spaces. Why would you ever want to promote segregation?
There is an argument I see thrown around a lot which concludes that [...] It is impossible for a non-white person to be racist.
What Roof did was truly despicable. Nobody will be turned away from a church, and he knew that. It is an example of the work of a twisted, sick individual who is in no way representative of anyone at all. If you want to use what he did to promote segregation, then you shouldn't be opposed to other people excluding others for similar crimes. For example, in light of many terrorist attacks, should people then exclude Muslims from certain events? Personally, I don't think so. These disasters are the work of terrorists who don't represent any functioning member of the general public at all. EDIT: With regards to your point about excluding people because they might take over the conversation; that's a fair point that I'll need to think over. I had a conversation with Herunar a little way down there who made the same point. At the moment however, I am unconvinced that the good outweighs the bad in the idea of self-segregation.
My point is that there is a lack of trust among many black Americans about white people entering their spaces. The church shooting crystalized that distrust among a lot of black people I know. I'm not sure how to explain the categorical difference between a group of black activists excluding whites versus a government or company excluding Muslims from an airplane. Well, one difference is de jure discrimination versus de facto, but even that is not what I'm getting at. Additionally, the message from a lot of the Black Lives Matter groups has been to encourage white people to form their own auxillary groups to support BLM.
Eeeeh, I see where you're coming from (and I most certainly agree that the Irish people were treated horrifically by the British and, later, America as well) but I think you're missing the point about the PoC only spaces. That video you're referring to I believe was of Bernie Sanders having the mic taken away from his at a political event - this wasn't done by the broader BLM movement but rather two extremists whose views are fairly atypical. He wasn't kicked out for being white, though - he had the mic taken from him because these two activists wanted to shed more light on racial issues in the US, particularly concerning the African American community, because they felt white progressives sort of ignored them. And they do, honestly - I think Bernie Sanders is an exception to this, though. But any POC spaces (I mean, I don't even know to what extent they actually exist, to be honest with ya) exist just to give people a bit of a safe space where they can discuss issues that frankly a lot of people can't really empathize with just because they haven't experienced racism in the same way. It's all very well and good to say "We should see each other as people, not colors guys!" but that doesn't really work when the system is so ultimately rigged to see people as inherently different. You gotta start somewhere to get that ultimate egalitarian goal - and even then, it's a goal that will probably never, ever be achieved because people are a bit shit at treating others as equals, as the occupation of Ireland very clearly showed. Shit, if you had a English guy in 17th century Ireland walking into a pub and declaring HEY GUYS LET'S JUST GET OVER THIS DISCRIMINATORY DIVIDE AND BE COOL, he'd get a pretty rude answer. I mean, fuck, if you had an English person today going into Ireland or Northern Ireland and just saying "Oh hey that's all water under the bridge, you don't have to be so bitter about it all, couldn't have been that bad, amirite?" he'd get a rude response, and deservedly so. White people aren't inherently racist. I don't agree with anyone who says otherwise. But it's important to note that Irish people weren't seen as human - heck I don't even think they were seen as white. They were seen, much like Asians and Africans and etc were, as a different race. So you could argue that because they weren't seen as white they didn't get the benefits of being white. The same goes for the Polish and Eastern Europeans and people from the Caucasus.
Thanks for the response, you make some pretty compelling points. The video I was talking about was this one, but thanks for the clarification about the Bernie Sanders one; I was curious about what the whole hubbub about it was and was tempted to use it as an illustration as well. In any case, I don't know enough about the race issues currently facing the United States, so I'll try and gear my thoughts more towards the issues in a more general sense. In any case, I agree Ireland is hardly a glimmering bastion of hope when it comes to overcoming racial adversity. My ex-girlfriend was English who grew up in a primarily Irish Catholic area of Belfast, she went through hell just for being there. I do believe that that a huge part racial problems stems from the us-them mentality. I agree with you, eliminating this idea is not something than can be done easily, but it is the place to start. Taking my ex's ordeals in Belfast as an example, a lot of the problems occurred because Catholics and Protestants refused to associate with one another. Now, there is no obvious solution I can see to the issues in the north, but, by creating a "white only" or "PoC-only" space you are creating an issue that parallels the issues in Northern Ireland. You are creating and/or deepening an us-them mentality, when the goal should be to obliterate it. Even if the intention of this segregation is innocuous, it will still result in a huge mess. Your last argument is an interesting one and I'll have to mull over it for awhile, but nevertheless my previous point still stands. All of those people didn't benefit from a historical hierarchy of power, and so the "all white people are inherently racist" argument still doesn't hold. Anyways, I'm glad to see you don't subscribe to that ideology, and that tells me that at least on the whole we're in agreement, and right now we're just discussing the details and nuances.
Mmm, now, the thing is, I do think most of this discussion revolves around the US (there is probably even more racism against minority groups in certain European countries but I think it's a very different sort) and the thing is, racial politics in the US are probably as virulent as the Northern Irish sectarian conflict, but also very different. Now, from what I heard from my Catholic Northern Irish friends, Protestants and Catholics make up an almost even amount of the population there - the Protestants have a small majority, but it very small. In the US we aren't creating an issue that parallels what is happening in NI. That issue is already there and has been for a long time, simply because the white majority (and I say white in the context of the US here again - not all white people, like people you could call minority whites like Polish immigrants or the Jewish community and etc) was in a position that was inherently superior to African Americans in particular as well as the Asian and Hispanic community, among other non-white minorities. They completely outnumbered them, held a disproportionate amount of power and for a long time the US was basically an apartheid state in some respects. That isn't to say that EVERY SINGLE WHITE PERSON who benefited from their advantages was racist or at fault - I doubt anyone would argue that, but the system was most certainly rigged in their favor. Do you see how radically different that is from NI? The Protestants may have some advantages but you could argue that the Catholics held their own pretty well. The advantages that the white ruling classes had over minorities in the US is nothing like that - the us-them mentality has been there for ages. And just as you pointed out there is no obvious solution in the north, there is no easy, obvious solution in the States. It will take time to really heal all those wounds and because of institutional racism African Americans in particular still suffer a lot of injustice today. That's why those safe spaces are pretty important. But once again, I really don't think many of those exist to the extent that the media portrays them. I don't have a problem with them though, much in the way I don't have a problem with, for example, a gaming convention that caters to the LGBT crowd exclusively or Feminist Clubs/Societies that have 'women-only' nights to discuss pertinent issues that only they can really empathize with and fully understand. These safe spaces for marginalized and minority communities are so very, very important, just because that minority identity often forms a pretty core part of their everyday experience and life in a way that being part of the majority doesn't. I think there are very, very few people that sincerely believe "all white people are inherently racist". From a US perspective and context, I think a lot of people are often very frustrated and scared for their safety and their communities, and that frustration can often translate into statements that may come across as a bit inflammatory but are actually sorta understandable if you consider their perspective.
I don't really want to get too bogged down in the history of The Troubles, I was more trying to use it as an illustration for segregation/the us-them mentality. I see the point you're driving at in your third paragraph, I agree/disagree to a certain extent but just so that I don't end up going into too much history (and a lot of Irish history is very contentious) I'll just leave it. You may well be right, the phenomenon of self-segregation could just be amplified by the media. Personally, I'm pretty unconvinced that it's a net-good. In my eyes, it's just preaching to the choir, and opening up rifts even more. Which of us is right, I don't know, but I see where you're coming from and take it into consideration. There are a few Americanisms that spill across the water over here, and I've begun to see in recent years more people here in Ireland discussing the race issues here in the same way that you would discuss race issues in America. Some of my interest in the matter stems from my opinion that the commentary on your side of the Atlantic simply doesn't translate over to our side because our histories are far too different; and yet I do see some of it translating over directly. Anyways, thanks for the discussion! I really appreciate interesting conversation and it's given me quite a bit to think about!