Welcome to the internet's top destination for the civil discussion of politics. This is a forum for discussion and debate of the issues, and not for personal remarks aimed at other discussants.
This forum has no political affiliation and welcomes your perspective on the issues. Membership is free. If you would like to join the discussions and debates please REGISTER HERE.
All new members should review the forum rules. The "Today's Posts" button automatically adjusts itself to fit your screen on its first use for Firefox and on its second use, for Internet Explorer. Have a pleasant day. (This is a spam free board.)
Izzy, look at how Africans treat each other. Look how the different Muslim sects, (Shia and Sunni) treat each other. It's not a racial thing., it's certainly not just an American History thing. It's a human being thing. Human beings have always tended to mistrust "different". Societies feed on this, always have, probably always will. Race will always be an issue, on the social front, everywhere. All anyone can do is live their own life. Mankind isn't going to change.
I'm not sure where you're going with this. Africans don't treat each other any differently than Europeans treat each other. Some Muslim sects don't treat each other any different than some Christian sects treat each other (perhaps not in America). You're right. That's life.
But this thread is about anti-white racism. Yes, it exists.. but it does not exist on the level that it has recently been brought up to and it certainly doesn't exist on the same level as racism towards non-whites. Minorities are not more privileged than whites in this country. Not even close. Anti-white racism is punished just as much as any other racism (if not more.. we can go through and start analyzing prison sentences by crime/race if need be).
O.K. lets say that anti-white racism is not
as prevalent as racism against minorites. Let's also say that in the mere 40 years since the equal rights amendment passed, that minorities have done a whole lot of expecting the entire white race to pay for "implied" sentiments because of past laws and actions. Do you expect me to be O.K. with this?
Segregation is bad. Calling yourself an African-American implies that you wish to segregate yourself from me. Why is that "racial pride" and not segregation.
My only problem here is that minorities complain about how they are treated and respond by returning the sentiment that they supposedly abhor. WTF mate!
Racism towards black has resulted in enslavery, made people think black people are lesser people (even today) and equate them with animals.
Racism towards white has resulted in what? White people not being able to stamp "white" on video tapes or title of TV shows? Call certain people in abbreviated forms?
I'm not saying racism towards white is right, but it's nowhere near the same level. White people are generally not looked down as genetically lesser people. A term like cracker is also incomparable to nigger. The N word is a term you cannot say on national TV or public radio. Cracker is derogatory, but yet harmless enough to be used for name of a kind of biscuit.
I think you are way overgeneralizing here. Way. If I am in my office and I walk up to an Asian person and say "Hey, chink!" you think I won't be fired because I have darker skin? If I said to a coworker, "How you doing, honkey?" (which doesn't have anywhere NEAR the same connotation as 'nigger' or 'gook' or 'kike', by the way) you think I would be able to get away with that? No.
There is a difference between a majority group (who, at one point in time has exercised some form of major discrimination and/or violence against EVERY OTHER minority group in the area) calling minorities derogatory names and minority groups calling majority groups names. Neither side should do it. But there is a difference. Dehumanizing through name-calling is a way to exercise authority and superiority over a group of people. Whites in this country have most of the control and have had it since this countries inception. Minorities do not. A LOT more goes along with words like "nigger" and "gook" (think violence and oppression) than goes along with words like "cracker" and "honkey" (think... what do those words even mean? and could you tell me where they came from without looking it up on the internet right now? cuz i could tell you where the words used against whites came from).
In the end, the solution is not for minorities to use "slurs" against whites. But, #1. claiming that non-white people can get away with racism is a laugh and, #2. claiming that "slurs" directed towards whites carry the same weight as slurs directed towards non-whites is also ridiculous. The history of words is important and the word "nigger" is a lot more violent, vicious, and intentionally hurtful than the word "honkey" ever could be. When a white person calls a black person a "nigger" they are essentially saying what Richards said all those months ago,... that the black person is not worthy of speaking to that white person and is equal to the worth of a slave... perhaps they may even believe that the black person should be a slave and dream of "better days" when black people didn't even have the 'privilege' of speaking to whites. That is where the word comes from and, even though black people have tried (and failed in my opinion) to "reclaim" the word.. that is what it means. Slave. Worthless. When a black person calls a white person a "cracker"... I don't even know what that means (from what I understand it is derived from the sound of the whip when whites used to beat blacks during slavery in America - and also the word was actually worn like a badge of honor for a time and white people called THEMSELVES 'crackers' out of pride... then the word slipped back down to simply referring to all whites... so unlike the word 'nigger' which has ALWAYS been racial... the word 'cracker' originated from slave speech and had less to do with race than with the instrument used by slave owners to beat the slaves and morphed into a racial term)). But I certainly don't think of violence and hatred directed towards whites when I hear it. If anything, you'd think of more violent imagery towards slaves, knowing where the word came from.
So yeah... non-whites in the real world can't go around saying racist isht and not get in trouble, believe it or not.
Straw Man. Izzy, you're missing the point of bododie's argument.
He isn't arguing that the "nigger" is worse than "cracker", he's arguing that
Black people can say a certain word "scott free", and if White people were to say that word, people are offended (often to the point of legal action).
I don't see the 1st Admendmnet holding up when one group of people can say something deragatory and that's OK, and when group B says the same thing, they are attacked.
And yes, anti-white racism is under represented. Just look at Jena 6. Both groups, White and Black, got off easy. But the Black students more so, the crime they commited (second degree battery) was not defined as race related. The battery was as race related as the noose hangings.
__________________
High school Extempers are quite possibly the most brilliant people on Earth.
O.K. lets say that anti-white racism is not
as prevalent as racism against minorites. Let's also say that in the mere 40 years since the equal rights amendment passed, that minorities have done a whole lot of expecting the entire white race to pay for "implied" sentiments because of past laws and actions. Do you expect me to be O.K. with this?
How are minorities expecting whites to pay?
Quote:
Segregation is bad. Calling yourself an African-American implies that you wish to segregate yourself from me. Why is that "racial pride" and not segregation.
Did African-Americans call themselves such first? Or did whites? It seems to me as if it would be something that the majority would have come up with considering it kind of implies that "American" = white... while there are African-Americans, Japanese-Americans, Chinese-Americans... there are also Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, etc. Focusing on "African-American" as a term meaning that blacks are trying to segregate themselves is kind of ridiculous when you look at all the other Dash-Americans that are out there. Some of those people perhaps immigrated from their original country (China for example) and have pride in that country (and so decided to call themselves "Chinese-Americans"). Or perhaps because this country is so mixed with different people, it is a bit more respectful to refer to them in a term which gives you an idea of what race they are while still maintaining that they are an American citizen? There are many reasons for this other than continuing to segregate.
Quote:
My only problem here is that minorities complain about how they are treated and respond by returning the sentiment that they supposedly abhor. WTF mate!
Uhm. "Minorities" don't respond by returning the sentiment that they abhor. Some minorities may. But not even the majority do.
However, when you are constantly under some kind of attack.. it's really hard to "be the better person" and not harbor some resentment towards that majority that is attacking you (I'm not talking about just physical attacks). As I said.. it has only been 40 years since people have even been able to marry other races. It takes time for things to change (head down south or to the midwest and tell me that there isn't rampant racism against minorities) on the majority side.. and as that happens then the resentment will go away. People are expecting miracles here! It takes time! But again.. pretending that it's not there or getting pissed at the minority for being upset is a waste of time and slows the process down.
Trying to say things like "Well, things aren't changing because 20% of the population just won't let it go!" is lame. The 70% has to start making the changes first. The 20% can't really do isht until that happens.
Straw Man. Izzy, you're missing the point of bododie's argument.
He isn't arguing that the "nigger" is worse than "cracker", he's arguing that
Black people can say a certain word "scott free", and if White people were to say that word, people are offended (often to the point of legal action).
I'm not missing the point at all.
I'm explaining that black people CAN'T often say a word scott-free. It may appear that way in media world, but that's not real life. Non-whites are punished for racism in the real world just as often, if not more than whites.
And the words being used are important. "Cracker" simply does not hold the same weight OR have the same history as the word "nigger". White people can say that "cracker" is as offensive as "nigger" all they want but it is not true. Looking up the history, usage and origin of the words will tell you that.
Like I said... if I walked up to my mom and called her a jerk, I think she would be a LOT less offended if I walked up to her and called her a bitch or a cunt or whatever other wonderful mixes and matches of words I could come up with. The words matter.
Quote:
I don't see the 1st Admendmnet holding up when one group of people can say something deragatory and that's OK, and when group B says the same thing, they are attacked.
Like I said... come up with some words that are equivalent to the racist terms that people have come up with for non-white races and we will have a case here in terms of what is deemed acceptable in hollywood and whatnot (where you see all of the drama happening). In real life, you can't call your boss a "a fucking cracker" and get away with it if you're black just like you can't call your boss "a fucking nigger" and get away with it if you're white.
There is no double standard. The words might not mean the same or have the same origin but if it's deemed racism you will be punished in the real world whether you are black or white.
Quote:
And yes, anti-white racism is under represented. Just look at Jena 6. Both groups, White and Black, got off easy. But the Black students more so, the crime they commited (second degree battery) was not defined as race related. The battery was as race related as the noose hangings.
There is a lot more to that case than you presented in this short paragraph. There were instances where white students pulled shotguns on black students and were not punished. There were instances where white students beat up black students and were not punished. The white students were also not punished for hanging the nooses up in the tree in the first place. The black students beat up a white student and they were punished. They were OVERLY punished.
No one is arguing that what the black students did was right. They should not have beat up the white student. Not at all. But when you look at the history surrounding the incident and notice a complete imbalance.. THAT is where the racism comes in. The injustice in that case is that the whole situation could possibly have been avoided entirely if people had done the right thing in that town/school district and nipped the problem in the bud. Instead they allowed the hatred to blossom and turn in to a big pile of crap for the whole country to smell and weigh in on. They were going to punish those boys unfairly and instead of having to face up to the problems in their town they were just going to throw another bunch of young black males in prison on exaggerated charges and move on with their lives.
Jena 6: the charges weren't exaggerated. The main perp in the case already had a record of abuse that was reported, but unpunished.
The "N" word: I have to say it needs to go, and it would be easier to see it go if blacks didn't use it so much to refer to each other. On the other hand, maybe if we just say it 10 million times it will cease to mean anything (which could be bad, also, since it would cause us to forget what has happened historically?)
In the U.S. non-white comedians can say "white people always..." and make blanket assumptions. A white comedian cannot, regardless of intent. Most of the time, I can laugh about it. Sometimes, I think it's mean-spirited. However, since the usual criticisms are that, as a white, I can't dance, sing, play basketball, what have you, then I guess it's okay, since these are really minor criticisms. And since I'm white, I'm not allowed to complain about it anyway, right?
Let's face it: there's a double standard of behavior on some things. You have to look at intent.
In the U.S. non-white comedians can say "white people always..." and make blanket assumptions. A white comedian cannot, regardless of intent. Most of the time, I can laugh about it. Sometimes, I think it's mean-spirited. However, since the usual criticisms are that, as a white, I can't dance, sing, play basketball, what have you, then I guess it's okay, since these are really minor criticisms. And since I'm white, I'm not allowed to complain about it anyway, right?
This is simply untrue. If you watch comedy central or BET or any of those television stations when they have stand up comedians you will see PLENTY of white people who are also allowed to say "black people always..." or "Asians always..."
I would say that white comedians are more likely to avoid the subject because it's TOUCHY. Sometimes people can feel uncomfortable poking fun at stuff when a group they identify with was discriminating or doing violence towards a specific group of people (are you really going to be surprised if you don't hear a German making jokes towards Jewish people or homosexuals? and WWII ended 20 years BEFORE blacks and whites gained the right to marry each other!). But there are a number of white comedians who choose to make jokes about non-whites and a number of non-white comedians who choose to make jokes about whites.
What Michael Richards did was not comedy. And neither is what whatshisface on the radio did.
You want to see a white comedian who is a woman no less? Go watch some Lisa Lampanelli comedy shows on youtube. NSFW. Personally, I think she is the funniest woman on the planet. But that's just me.
In the U.S. non-white comedians can say "white people always..." and make blanket assumptions. A white comedian cannot, regardless of intent. Most of the time, I can laugh about it. Sometimes, I think it's mean-spirited. However, since the usual criticisms are that, as a white, I can't dance, sing, play basketball, what have you, then I guess it's okay, since these are really minor criticisms. And since I'm white, I'm not allowed to complain about it anyway, right?
Let's face it: there's a double standard of behavior on some things. You have to look at intent.
Don't know who you're referring to about not watching stand up comedy. However:
This is simply untrue. If you watch comedy central or BET or any of those television stations when they have stand up comedians you will see PLENTY of white people who are also allowed to say "black people always..." or "Asians always..."
You want me to watch BET...uh-huh...I don't think I'm exactly a part of their demographic (which might explain why I haven't seen what you're talking about). That said, I stand by my statement. Non-white comedians can say more, sterotype more, more often, and get away with more than whites can. Further, I would offer a vast majority of white comics avoid race, while black comics play to it. I would assume this has to happen more on BET, at least, since there are more black comics.
I would say that white comedians are more likely to avoid the subject because it's TOUCHY.
It's touchy if you're a white person talking about a black person. This includes just about anything--comedy, criticism-- you have to have your guard up, b/c if you're white, you can get painted as a racist for pointing out anything.
But there are a number of white comedians who choose to make jokes about non-whites and a number of non-white comedians who choose to make jokes about whites.
There are more instances of black comedians being sterotypical than whites, if only because of what you mentioned before about "touchiness." As long as whites can be made to feel guilty about past iniquities, and present injustice (both real and imagined), you won't find whites saying much of anything about blacks (well, other than racists posting trash, I guess).
What Michael Richards did was not comedy. And neither is what whatshisface on the radio did.
Didn't say it was. I was glad Imus was fired. Wish he wouldn't got rehired. At the same time, would a black person who said "Nappy-headed ho's" get fired for the same statement? Or would THAT be considered "comedy?" I would hope he'd get fired. I can't be sure he'd be held to the same standard, though, b/c blacks get a pass on use of negative sterotyping of their own race.
Last edited by honestiago : 05-07-2008 at 03:30 PM.
Linear Mode
