As a disclaimer I am aware this is a heated topic and I am only trying to look at this from an analytical standpoint.
So, today I was sitting in the chow hall eating my lunch when I heard a fellow service member use the "n-" word, so I immediately look over to see a group of black service members eating together and joking about something or other, and I was on the verge of asking them not to say it again because I found it offensive. After thinking about it for a second I came to the conclusion that it's ridiculous that someone of a different background is asking people to stop using a term so incredibly derogatory to their entire race. If it's so offensive when someone else uses it, why is it okay for rappers and young men to use a term that was coined and used for at least a century in a degrading manner?
Between my friends I know we call each other such endearing terms as "fethface" and "asshat" but such names are only referring to the person and not to their ancestry. I know some people have used the justification, "It's our word." but I find that completely preposterous, if it's going to be in the general lexicon I don't see how you can change the meaning on a case by case basis. Personally I think if people want to be offended by it, then all should stop using it.
Its one of those words that have evolved into another meaning. If you get angry and call a black person the -N- word, its really hateful. Theres no argument there, but Ive seen ALOT of close friends call each other that, both black and white. Hell I used to hang with a guy that called all his close friends nig. Not the N word per-say but still it could easily be mistaken for the bad one. I think really it depends on how its used.
Id never call anyone that, but thats what Ive gathered on it
kronk wrote:If a word is bad, it's bad no matter who says it.
I don't call my white friends _____, or my mexican friends _____. Nor would I appreciate anyone saying any of the above.
The only hatred allowed is for a tiny minority of Muslims, who want to kill or conquer all non-muslims, the reasoning behind which has nothing at all to do with their faith
Fix'd.
Let's just say, if ignorance is bliss, you must surely be the happiest man on the planet.
kronk wrote:Meh. Just go read a book on non-muslims in Islamic states.
Go read a history on non-Christians in Christian states. Hell, read a history about non-Catholic Christians in a Catholic state or vice versa. Islam doesn't have a monopoly on treating nonbelievers badly.
I think that a fair segment of African Americans find the word offensive when use this way as well, but like most things, opinions vary. The word was politicized and used by blacks as a way to disempower it, but it also simply became part of urban slang and the speech of black youth culture for it's shock value.
It is a charged word.
then again it is similar to the word "gay".
Some people say things like "that game is gay" or "don't be a cigarette" and think these are in no way potentially offensive to homosexuals because it is just slang or a part of youth vernacular that has been disassociated from homosexuality in some people's minds. Others see it as a homophobic word.
kronk wrote:Meh. Just go read a book on non-muslims in Islamic states.
Go read a history on non-Christians in Christian states. Hell, read a history about non-Catholic Christians in a Catholic state or vice versa. Islam doesn't have a monopoly on treating nonbelievers badly.
I'm reading a book that was walking furniture and Cohen the Barbarian. Does that count?
Albatross wrote:Pratchett is awesome. Have you read any of his 'City Watch' books yet, Frazzled? VERY good.
No Genghis Connie offered me the involuntary opportunity to read it it. This is Discworld lightning or something. Its actually quite good, sort of a fantasy version of Hitchiker's Guide light.
'The Light Fantastic'? Yeah, I love the 'Discworld' series - there's like a series-within-a-series about the City Watch of Ankh-Morpork. Excellent. They're his best books, in my opinion. They're basically fantasy cop novels - something which is pretty unique, as far as I'm aware.
Albatross wrote:'The Light Fantastic'? Yeah, I love the 'Discworld' series - there's like a series-within-a-series about the City Watch of Ankh-Morpork. Excellent. They're his best books, in my opinion. They're basically fantasy cop novels - something which is pretty unique, as far as I'm aware.
Meh. Berate all you want. I'm not the one with my head burried in the sand.
Muslims aren't even a race. You're the one with your head buried in something quite different then sand. I would assume (safely) that you have no idea what islamic doctrine teaches, likely because you simply have absolutely no contact with any of the source material personally. You're just blithering what you get in your freerepublic newsletter.
Funny, I had the pleasure of working with some Islamic people of great education, and they were more most insistent to the opposite, that Islam like christianity is a religion of peace and tolerance.
My one really close token black friend finds only the phrase "porch monkey" to be genuinely offensive. That and anything by Ms. Peachez.
"[see forum posting rules]," itself, no longer bears the connotation it once had. When some racist plantation owner used it to address his slaves, it meant "property," "inferiority" and possibly "monster". Which, of course, is not okay.
But think about it's evolved usage. Observe a group of urban youths conversing. In my experience, "[see forum posting rules]" is more akin to "friend" than anything else. It may have different connotations in rap (i.e. "Bustin caps in some [see forum posting rules]") which is understandable due to the inherent anger of that genre.
I think, really, that the biggest issue is that this group of people that cling to this word as an excuse to get angry. Worse yet, they can get angry, do worse than throw around a slur, and then make the other guy look guilty of a hate crime. It's inane. Like the slur "cracker" for whites.
You know what? Woe betide anyone who isn't white who I hear say cracker. You want some saltines? You best be asking for biscuits , mothafether.
See how dumb that was? Same thing, as far as I'm concerned.
The point to all this, is that while it's not appropriate or acceptable to go around calling blacks "[see forum posting rules]", Asians "chinks," gays "[see forum posting rules]," Hispanics, "wetbacks" or the people on Jersey Shore "Guidos," the taboo for these words should come from a deep seated intolerance for racism or biggotry, not the inverse racism any ethnic group creates by "owning" a word.
A word's intention is the only thing that really governs it's meaning (especially in the case of offensive words), but I've never understood the sense of entitlement to the word. I guess it may represent triumph over a horrifying situation. I stay away from derogatory terms as much as possible, as I actively despise racism on both sides of the fence.
At least it is only a derivative word, and it has no truly evil inspiration (So I can see how it could be used as a term of endearment to spite racists and bigots). It's nothing like the word 'f*ggot', for instance, which derived it's origins from the literal burning of homosexuals during the Middle Ages. That's much more horrifying in it's intention, yet it is widely accepted by the general public and commonly used as an insult towards anyone (especially males). Now that is a word that I'll never understand the usage of.
I casually use race-based derogitory terms to describe anyone I'm pissed off at. Including whites. I really don't see how it's any different to verbally abusing anyone with "normal" swearing. I'm sure a lot of people will have some sort of issue with this, but whatever.
If I'm annoyed at someone IRL, and I mean really annoyed, I'll swear at them. I might happen to throw in a racial slur or two, along with all the slurs about their face, intelligence, behaviour, etc. I just don't see why it's a big thing. Although, down here in my little corner of the world, we might have different attitudes , and there were never any black slaves here to begin with (making the N word largely toothless).
When my girlfriends family uses the N word (and they do quite allot),it doesn't bother me,considering they are all African Americans.
When I'm called the N word by African American family/friends..I see it as a term of endearment.
When I hear it in a political/comedic context pertaining to social commentary...not offended.
But...If the word is coming out of a White guy with a swastika tattoo...or hell..in any Negative context...then I do have a problem with the word.
IAmTheWalrus wrote:If it's so offensive when someone else uses it, why is it okay for rappers and young men to use a term that was coined and used for at least a century in a degrading manner?
It's a process called "reclaiming." When young black men use that word amongst themselves, they are "reclaiming" the word -- taking it way from white people, and making it their own.
It's not the word itself that is offensive, its the context, because no combination of sounds can be offensive without context (except perhaps going "EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!" ala Dumb & Dumber). When a white person uses that word, it is assumed to mean "Hey you, the inferior third or even fourth class citizen over there, yes you, now listen to me or I and my white friends will grab a rope and string you up from that tree over yonder." Because for over a century white people both used that word to refer to black people, and engaged in the more or less legalized murder of black people via lynchings*.
When black people use it amongst themselves, the assumed meaning is more like "Hey you, remember when we used to have to live in fear of white people and were third or fourth class citizens, and how far we've come, to the point where this horrible word they used to demean us is now our property and we can use it as a friendly greeting just to annoy white people, as well as demand they never use it under any circumstances no matter how friendly we may be to them?"
If you're white, the the n-word is like a test. A test of how conscious of race issues you are, and how racially enlightened you are. If you have even a shred of a clue what has occurred in this country over the last 60 years and are mindful of modern racial politics, then you know that it is never appropriate to use that word, and that complaining about black people using it marks you as definitely ignorant and probably a closet racist. Which means that if you (I am presuming you are white), turned to those black guys and told them not to use that word, they would likely have assumed that you are a clueless and probably racist white idiot who thinks that Jim Crow is still in effect and that black people have some obligation to defer to white sensibilities. It would not have gone over well.
Now, white people can complain, and insist that this is somehow racist, and generally make fools of themselves, but all the whinging is just a demonstration of ignorance. In modern American society, white people who oppose racism do not use the n-word and do tolerate black people using it amongst themselves. Additionally, racially sensitive white people know better than to try to argue that black people shouldn't use it, they don't cite black community leaders who decry its usage, and generally accept that "It's a black thing, it's not your job to understand, just leave it well enough to be."
* Next time you think this country is not racist, remember that the white people in question may have been your own grandparents, and that lynchings were still happening all the way up until the 70s. Seriously. At least a few people reading this will never admit it, perhaps not even to themselves, but know that their own parents and grandparents were part of the racist majority that voted in favor of segregation, Jim Crow, and engaged in lynchings. All those tens of thousands racists didn't just vanish off the face of the earth when the Civil Rights Act was passed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Commander Endova wrote:I think, really, that the biggest issue is that this group of people that cling to this word as an excuse to get angry. Worse yet, they can get angry, do worse than throw around a slur, and then make the other guy look guilty of a hate crime. It's inane. Like the slur "cracker" for whites.
You know what? Woe betide anyone who isn't white who I hear say cracker. You want some saltines? You best be asking for biscuits , mothafether.
See how dumb that was? Same thing, as far as I'm concerned.
That is, frankly, an idiotic position. Cracker, and honkey, are both utterly toothless words that have never been seriously offensive to anyone.
More importantly, black people didn't bring white people to America in chains, spend centuries keeping them bound in slavery, rape and kill them, all with a legal imprimatur that only ended within the living memory of a large segment of the population.
Any time you think white people have as much to be angry about and offended about when it comes to "reverse racism," you're being a tool. History actually does matter. Try to remember that.
I'm surprized that (I assume) boot camp was the first place the OP heard it being used in this way. Anyone who cares to see just about how often it's thrown about my neck of the country (A northern state mind you) just needs to hit-up the Craigslist Rants and Raves for Buffalo, NY (This is a rediculously offensive site, even for CL, make sure your parents and loved ones aren't in the room).
Really around here though it's lost all meaning, it's about as enraging as calling someone a ka-ka head. You will probably be beaten up for it but that's more because you're identifying your self with a hate group by using it toward a black person then actually offending someone.
As for the black calling black situation? It's the same as when your friend calls you a slow or a homo. They know they can get away with it because they are your friend and they do it so that people around them give them a moments attention. Otherwise there's no "Racial Struggle To Disempower This Ultimate In Offensive Terms!!!" they're just being immature.
It's a process called "reclaiming." When young black men use that word amongst themselves, they are "reclaiming" the word -- taking it way from white people, and making it their own.
It's not the word itself that is offensive, its the context, because no combination of sounds can be offensive without context (except perhaps going "EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!" ala Dumb & Dumber). When a white person uses that word, it is assumed to mean "Hey you, the inferior third or even fourth class citizen over there, yes you, now listen to me or I and my white friends will grab a rope and string you up from that tree over yonder." Because for over a century white people both used that word to refer to black people, and engaged in the more or less legalized murder of black people via lynchings*.
When black people use it amongst themselves, the assumed meaning is more like "Hey you, remember when we used to have to live in fear of white people and were third or fourth class citizens, and how far we've come, to the point where this horrible word they used to demean us is now our property and we can use it as a friendly greeting just to annoy white people, as well as demand they never use it under any circumstances no matter how friendly we may be to them?"
I'm quite aware of the historical context of it's use, which I alluded to in my original post. If I didn't make it clear I am against the word in any use at all because of said historical context and it seems to me that you're propagating it's use by the black portion of the population but not the white, which is the definition of discrimination. In case you were curious dictionary.com defines discrimination as, "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit."
Gailbraithe wrote:
If you're white, the the n-word is like a test. A test of how conscious of race issues you are, and how racially enlightened you are. If you have even a shred of a clue what has occurred in this country over the last 60 years and are mindful of modern racial politics, then you know that it is never appropriate to use that word, and that complaining about black people using it marks you as definitely ignorant and probably a closet racist. Which means that if you (I am presuming you are white), turned to those black guys and told them not to use that word, they would likely have assumed that you are a clueless and probably racist white idiot who thinks that Jim Crow is still in effect and that black people have some obligation to defer to white sensibilities. It would not have gone over well.
Now, white people can complain, and insist that this is somehow racist, and generally make fools of themselves, but all the whinging [sic] is just a demonstration of ignorance. In modern American society, white people who oppose racism do not use the n-word and do tolerate black people using it amongst themselves. Additionally, racially sensitive white people know better than to try to argue that black people shouldn't use it, they don't cite black community leaders who decry its usage, and generally accept that "It's a black thing, it's not your job to understand, just leave it well enough to be."
* Next time you think this country is not racist, remember that the white people in question may have been your own grandparents, and that lynchings were still happening all the way up until the 70s. Seriously. At least a few people reading this will never admit it, perhaps not even to themselves, but know that their own parents and grandparents were part of the racist majority that voted in favor of segregation, Jim Crow, and engaged in lynchings. All those tens of thousands racists didn't just vanish off the face of the earth when the Civil Rights Act was passed.
I like how you turned my analytical question into a personal attack.
For the record, I went through several very good schools and I am aware of what occurred during the Civil Rights Movement and I loosely follow modern racial politics. I am well aware that is never acceptable to use such a word, and I don't, but I also find it funny how the first thing your mind jumps to is that I'm white, uneducated and a racist. And maybe they would have stopped because we work in a professional environment and under the military Equal Opportunity policy they're legally bound to knock it off if it makes me uncomfortable, just as I would be if I was saying something that made them uncomfortable or offended them.
I oppose racism in all it's forms, and I think the use of this particular word in a discriminatory fashion (either way in my mind) inappropriate and is used to separate people. Seriously, how can you argue that saying "I can use this word and you can't" doesn't automatically divide people? I apologize if I've offended your sensibilities, but I don't fall into the mainstream of "racially-sensitive white people" and I feel the need to question a practice that I consider discrimination.
Okay, we've all read the history books and know all the bad things that happened in the past, and bringing them up constantly isn't an avenue for progress. Also, who cares if my grandparents were racists? I'm not and I won't stand to be judged by anyone's actions other than my own. I'd like to think that we've become a more tolerant, progressive nation and that any nation who would elect a black president (who I voted for, by the by) has come a long way since the rampant racism of the 60's.
@ IAmTheWalrus: Bah you suck! I forgot to mention that I thought you were half-black otherwise a minority or distinct ethnic group (technically white but you identify as italian, sicilian or other sub-division), I'm certain you aren't black yourself. Although the form of cold-reading I was taught isn't very useful in determining race, it's more concerned with Economic background and determining real intelligence for bull*******.
IAmTheWalrus wrote:I'm quite aware of the historical context of it's use, which I alluded to in my original post. If I didn't make it clear I am against the word in any use at all because of said historical context and it seems to me that you're propagating it's use by the black portion of the population but not the white, which is the definition of discrimination. In case you were curious dictionary.com defines discrimination as, "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit."
Look, there's discrimination, as in the ability to discriminate between things, and then there's harmful discrimination historically engaged in to ensure the dominance of the white culture and white ethnic group at the expense of people of color. The first kind of discrimination is harmless and necessary to function in the world, the second kind is a tragedy crying out for justice. Conflating the two is just dumb. It's important to maintain a sense of perspective and, as always, history.
Pretending that there isn't a black community in America with it own take on the issue of racism is silly. It's pretty darn obvious that there is a black America, which includes both black urban poor and the black middle class, black artists, black entertainers and a black intelligentsia. We can recognize that, scientifically speaking, race is a fiction and also recognize that there is a black community and culture, and hence that there are black people. And black people are aware of themselves as black people, and their blackness forms a significant part of their identity. Pretending that black people are exactly the same as white people in all regards is not overcoming racism, its blithely ignoring the reality of other people's existence. Its approaching other people as platonic ideals, ideas about people, and not recognizing
And what are you going to do, deny that there is a history between white people and black people that, when considered in its full, gives black people little reason at all to trust white people at all? As it stands right now, the primary effect of "colorblindness" is our failure to recognize that racism continues to play a huge influence in the lives of people of color -- and to ridiculous assertions like the one you made above. If you really understand the historical context of the n-word's usage, then how can you claim that it has the same history when used by black people? You're completely ignoring perhaps the single most significant factor in that historical context: the race of the oppressor and the race of the oppressed.
Gailbraithe wrote:I like how you turned my analytical question into a personal attack.
I was using the generic you, not addressing you in particular. But if the shoes fits...
For the record, I went through several very good schools and I am aware of what occurred during the Civil Rights Movement and I loosely follow modern racial politics. I am well aware that is never acceptable to use such a word, and I don't, but I also find it funny how the first thing your mind jumps to is that I'm white, uneducated and a racist.
I assume you are white because only a white person would post this stuff. I assume you are uneducated on race issues because, hey, you're displaying your ignorance for all to see. And I assume you are racist because you live on Earth and are alive. Pretty much everyone is racist.
I oppose racism in all it's forms, and I think the use of this particular word in a discriminatory fashion (either way in my mind) inappropriate and is used to separate people. Seriously, how can you argue that saying "I can use this word and you can't" doesn't automatically divide people? I apologize if I've offended your sensibilities, but I don't fall into the mainstream of "racially-sensitive white people" and I feel the need to question a practice that I consider discrimination.
Dude, people are separated already. People have been separated for hundreds of years. Pretending everything is hunky-dory is not going to bring people together, because there is an aggrieved party and it's not white people. Black people are, collectively, really sick and tired of white people. Black people wish white people would actually pay attention to them like they were real human beings.
Demanding that black people not use the n-word isn't going to promote racial harmony. It's just going to communicate that you aren't paying attention. Black people have collectively decided (by that unknown process by which societies make decisions) its not okay for white people to ever use that word, but are in disagreement about whether it is cool for them to use it. And they don't care about white people's opinions on the subject. Since it costs you nothing to give up the word, and it makes black people feel like they have social power to exert influence on white behavior, which in turn makes them feel more connected to the larger group.
That is the point of "multiculturalism" and "diversity." It means white people surrendering the useless tokens of white supremacy, like racial slurs, in deference to centuries of othered groups having no role in social discourse. It's essentially a pointless point of racial ettiquette, but like minding your manners, it shows respect. And you kind of have to be a clod to argue strongly that its not fair that black people can use the n-word but you can't. There's no way to go there without either arguing that you should get to use it or nobody should, or doing as you've done, and basically ignore that black people actually exist. For realz.
I could care less if black people call each other [see forum posting rules] or whatever. What would I be mad about? Being left out of the super special club? Different social groups will have different cultures, thats a given. And if you want to complain about the double standard, look at the double standard that existed in this country since the slave trade started.
Gailbraithe wrote:And I assume you are racist because you live on Earth and are alive. Pretty much everyone is racist.
Abstract discrimination and racism are not the same thing. You can eat an apple, or you can eat pieces of an apple in a pie. You can make an apple cake, you can also make a salad with pieces of apple in it. Apple pie, apple cake, and apple salad, are not apple. Apple is not Mac, and a Big mac is style of hamburger.
Everyone can be racist. That in no way suggests that everyone IS anything but naturally discriminatory, while not necessarily being literally racist.
Dude, people are separated already. People have been separated for hundreds of years. Pretending everything is hunky-dory is not going to bring people together, because there is an aggrieved party and it's not white people. Black people are, collectively, really sick and tired of white people. Black people wish white people would actually pay attention to them like they were real human beings.
There are several views on any given subject within any given community.
Demanding that black people not use the n-word isn't going to promote racial harmony. It's just going to communicate that you aren't paying attention. Black people have collectively decided (by that unknown process by which societies make decisions) its not okay for white people to ever use that word, but are in disagreement about whether it is cool for them to use it. And they don't care about white people's opinions on the subject. Since it costs you nothing to give up the word, and it makes black people feel like they have social power to exert influence on white behavior, which in turn makes them feel more connected to the larger group.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DEMAND TACOS.
Look, I actually agree with you on a great deal of what you have said and would appreciate if you could be just a bit more specific. Problems facing different communities should be dealt with in a manner that suits their needs. I believe that accepting the fact that racism still exists in many forms is no less than a requirement of any healthy society. On a national scale many issues concerning race get blurry and extremely difficult to fight against. Localized issues tend to be ignored for a larger idea, which doesn't necessarily have any impact on much of anything directly.
Recognizing that a given word is simply not appropriate is the important part. Using that word is a personal choice and may arrive with consequences, including those that involve getting punched in the face. If a Neo-nazi wants to say something stupid, I feel they should be allowed to do so. How people react does not only concern free-speech when other parts of the law are brought into a dispute. People are free to say many things that sound as stupid as they please, although, not on this forum.
That is the point of "multiculturalism" and "diversity." It means white people surrendering the useless tokens of white supremacy, like racial slurs, in deference to centuries of othered groups having no role in social discourse. It's essentially a pointless point of racial ettiquette, but like minding your manners, it shows respect. And you kind of have to be a clod to argue strongly that its not fair that black people can use the n-word but you can't. There's no way to go there without either arguing that you should get to use it or nobody should, or doing as you've done, and basically ignore that black people actually exist. For realz.
The argument is as strong as free-speech from either side can be. I fail to see how using a word in a context that would incite anger and possible reprisal, equates to ignoring the presence of a large population. Being black ≠not existing, even if problems that the community and individuals may face could be seen to suggest it. Ignoring someone's problems isn't ignoring people, it is ignoring problems. I can't read minds, even though I can recognize existing ignorance ABOUT a generalized community. People know other people exist, some try to ignore it but reality tends to have a mean back-hand.
Being of color is not the problem, it is how society reacts to that fact. Different minorities face different issues and to really deal with racial tension it needs to be recognized that there is not a monolithic reaction to people of color by white people. Nor is there the same for black people. Both generic terms are lacking in actual substance. I would agree that there is a 'black' culture but I would be hard pressed to actually identify it as a nation-wide culture. It is multi-faceted and you will find that opinions vary for a great deal of reasons, regardless of an overarching concept of solidarity. I would question how unified opinion is within the generalized black population (U.S. specifically), my guess is that if not diverse as some communities can be, it would still have a great deal of diversity, regardless.
Gailbraithe wrote:
More importantly, black people didn't bring white people to America in chains, spend centuries keeping them bound in slavery, rape and kill them, all with a legal imprimatur that only ended within the living memory of a large segment of the population.
Any time you think white people have as much to be angry about and offended about when it comes to "reverse racism," you're being a tool. History actually does matter. Try to remember that.
Just remember it was black people who captured and enslaved other black people and sold them to the whites to bring over as slaves.
I love the term "reverse racism". It suggest that racism is ok when it is directed against white people. It's not real racism it's "reverse racism". Because white kids have never been beaten up by a group of natives. Living in Canada I cannot personally comment on hostility from black people to white people as the only black people I knew grew up in Africa but I can tell you for certain that there were gangs of native kids that would wander around and beat the crap out of white kids for no other reason than they were white.
On topic though, if a word is offensive then it should be offensive no matter who uses it. Now context would matter. If the N word has changed meaning to be a term of endearment between friends then it should be fine for anyone to say no matter their race. If the word is still used in a negative "you are a stereotypical black man who is a lazy stupid thug" type way then it should be offensive no matter who says it. Now the question is how do we feel about people being offensive. Regular profanities have made it into most peoples casual conversations. Do we care that more offensive terms are becoming more casual? Some people do and some people are also still offended when people say S**t and F**k.
Easy:
-Use it in my home and you're never in my home again.
-Use it at my place of business and you'll never work here again.
-Use it in my presence and you're a friend you will be neither by the end of the sentence.
i consider the N word, as well as "gay" in the derogatory sense hate speech and that is never right to say. It makes me sad how people sling 'gay' around like it's a descriptive term for things people don't like. I think people should be more cautious with terms like gay and the N word... you never know who you might offend/hurt/enrage.
Wrexasaur wrote:Abstract discrimination and racism are not the same thing.
Thank you for the timely assist, Captain Obvious. I'm not quite sure what we would have done without you. Except, you know, carry on fine.
Everyone can be racist. That in no way suggests that everyone IS anything but naturally discriminatory, while not necessarily being literally racist.
Yeah, but pretty much everyone is racist. It's almost impossible not to be, because even if one recognizes that the idea of human races is scientifically falsifiable and factually incorrect, one still tends to notice other people's race. If you're a white person, then you're racist -- now before you react to that, let me explain what I mean: If you are identified as white by most people, that is because a) you have a low melanin count and b) most people are racist. If you accept this identification, if you believe that you are a white person, then you have embraced (almost certainly unconsciously, since we learn this stuff as little kids) the idea that white people exist, and if white people exist then race must exist, which means iptso facto if you think you are white, then you are a racist: a person who thinks of humans in terms of race.
Now, you can be a very enlightened racist (like me), meaning that you still see race just as society trains you to, but you also see that you've been trained, and you work to overcome that training and to raise the consciousness of others. But the hardest part about overcoming race is that a) almost everyone you talk to is a racist and won't even attempt to address that, and b) because of all of those unconscious racists racism is still having a powerful effect of oppressing people of color and privileging white people.
But pretty much everyone is a racist. I won't say everyone, because I haven't met everyone, but outside of tribes living untouched in the Amazon and people like that, I doubt you could find anyone who is entirely without racist ideas.
There are several views on any given subject within any given community.
Again, thank you Captain Obvious.
Look, there are clearly some people in modern American society who think having sex with eight year old girls is not a heinous crime (frex: pedophiles, 7chan users), but no one (with any damn common sense at least) is going to correct you if you say "Americans think having sex with eight year old girls is totally gross and heinous." Despite their being several views on any given subject within any given community.
Look, I actually agree with you on a great deal of what you have said and would appreciate if you could be just a bit more specific. Problems facing different communities should be dealt with in a manner that suits their needs. I believe that accepting the fact that racism still exists in many forms is no less than a requirement of any healthy society. On a national scale many issues concerning race get blurry and extremely difficult to fight against. Localized issues tend to be ignored for a larger idea, which doesn't necessarily have any impact on much of anything directly.
When it gets right down to it, racism isn't really an issue for politics, except to the degree that the Republicans (and Fox News) use race-baiting and race-based fear to win elections. There isn't much more the government can do. From here on out, it basically comes down to individuals choosing who they want to be, and how they want to face the remaining problem of racism.
The argument is as strong as free-speech from either side can be. I fail to see how using a word in a context that would incite anger and possible reprisal, equates to ignoring the presence of a large population.
That's not what were talking about. We're talking about a white guy turning around, intruding on a conversation between a group of black guys, and telling them to stop calling each of the n-word and justifying that action by asserting that there should be no double-standards. In this context, that essentially amounts to asserting that black people can't have their own opinion on the subject. When a white person makes the "people are just people" argument in order to support an action that amounts to telling a black person what to do, black people will tend to suspect what the white person in question really means is "people are just white people."
IAmTheWalrus wrote:I'm quite aware of the historical context of it's use, which I alluded to in my original post. If I didn't make it clear I am against the word in any use at all because of said historical context and it seems to me that you're propagating it's use by the black portion of the population but not the white, which is the definition of discrimination. In case you were curious dictionary.com defines discrimination as, "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit."
Look, there's discrimination, as in the ability to discriminate between things, and then there's harmful discrimination historically engaged in to ensure the dominance of the white culture and white ethnic group at the expense of people of color. The first kind of discrimination is harmless and necessary to function in the world, the second kind is a tragedy crying out for justice. Conflating the two is just dumb. It's important to maintain a sense of perspective and, as always, history.
Pretending that there isn't a black community in America with it own take on the issue of racism is silly. It's pretty darn obvious that there is a black America, which includes both black urban poor and the black middle class, black artists, black entertainers and a black intelligentsia. We can recognize that, scientifically speaking, race is a fiction and also recognize that there is a black community and culture, and hence that there are black people. And black people are aware of themselves as black people, and their blackness forms a significant part of their identity. Pretending that black people are exactly the same as white people in all regards is not overcoming racism, its blithely ignoring the reality of other people's existence. Its approaching other people as platonic ideals, ideas about people, and not recognizing
And what are you going to do, deny that there is a history between white people and black people that, when considered in its full, gives black people little reason at all to trust white people at all? As it stands right now, the primary effect of "colorblindness" is our failure to recognize that racism continues to play a huge influence in the lives of people of color -- and to ridiculous assertions like the one you made above. If you really understand the historical context of the n-word's usage, then how can you claim that it has the same history when used by black people? You're completely ignoring perhaps the single most significant factor in that historical context: the race of the oppressor and the race of the oppressed.
Gailbraithe wrote:I like how you turned my analytical question into a personal attack.
I was using the generic you, not addressing you in particular. But if the shoes fits...
For the record, I went through several very good schools and I am aware of what occurred during the Civil Rights Movement and I loosely follow modern racial politics. I am well aware that is never acceptable to use such a word, and I don't, but I also find it funny how the first thing your mind jumps to is that I'm white, uneducated and a racist.
I assume you are white because only a white person would post this stuff. I assume you are uneducated on race issues because, hey, you're displaying your ignorance for all to see. And I assume you are racist because you live on Earth and are alive. Pretty much everyone is racist.
I oppose racism in all it's forms, and I think the use of this particular word in a discriminatory fashion (either way in my mind) inappropriate and is used to separate people. Seriously, how can you argue that saying "I can use this word and you can't" doesn't automatically divide people? I apologize if I've offended your sensibilities, but I don't fall into the mainstream of "racially-sensitive white people" and I feel the need to question a practice that I consider discrimination.
Dude, people are separated already. People have been separated for hundreds of years. Pretending everything is hunky-dory is not going to bring people together, because there is an aggrieved party and it's not white people. Black people are, collectively, really sick and tired of white people. Black people wish white people would actually pay attention to them like they were real human beings.
Demanding that black people not use the n-word isn't going to promote racial harmony. It's just going to communicate that you aren't paying attention. Black people have collectively decided (by that unknown process by which societies make decisions) its not okay for white people to ever use that word, but are in disagreement about whether it is cool for them to use it. And they don't care about white people's opinions on the subject. Since it costs you nothing to give up the word, and it makes black people feel like they have social power to exert influence on white behavior, which in turn makes them feel more connected to the larger group.
That is the point of "multiculturalism" and "diversity." It means white people surrendering the useless tokens of white supremacy, like racial slurs, in deference to centuries of othered groups having no role in social discourse. It's essentially a pointless point of racial ettiquette, but like minding your manners, it shows respect. And you kind of have to be a clod to argue strongly that its not fair that black people can use the n-word but you can't. There's no way to go there without either arguing that you should get to use it or nobody should, or doing as you've done, and basically ignore that black people actually exist. For realz.
Word.
I have dropped the N-bomb amongst black friends. It is a sign of acceptance when it is tolerated, or even used with regard to a white person. In that sense, the answer to the OP's question is 'yes' but that 'yes' is heavily dependent upon context. It reminds me of other, similar slurs that are similarly tolerated when bandied about the Irish, Italian, and Jewish friends that most of us have had.
I have also used it with black friends, they even went so far as to instruct me as to it's proper use and what inflections to use in certain situations. I would definitely not use it around strangers though.
Also, GES, Ann Coulter is awesome. No one is that OTT, she's trolling the national airwaves and making fat cash off of it. God that's awesome.
BrockRitcey wrote:Just remember it was black people who captured and enslaved other black people and sold them to the whites to bring over as slaves.
Cluebrick: There isn't a person in the Americas who feels the need to bring that kind of nonsense up that isn't a white supremacist. Go back to Stormfront, and take your pointy white hate with you.
I love the term "reverse racism". It suggest that racism is ok when it is directed against white people. It's not real racism it's "reverse racism". Because white kids have never been beaten up by a group of natives. Living in Canada I cannot personally comment on hostility from black people to white people as the only black people I knew grew up in Africa but I can tell you for certain that there were gangs of native kids that would wander around and beat the crap out of white kids for no other reason than they were white.
That's not racism. That's racially radicalized resentment manifesting as prejudice against the dominant white supremacist majority. Racism is not okay when it's directed at white people, because that's impossible. And impossible things are not okay. White people can NEVER be the victims of racism. Racism exists solely to benefit the group defined as white people, that is the explicit and implicit purpose of racism.
If a black person hates a white person because that white person is white, that is not racism. That is resentment, and it is a by-product of racism. In that case it is not the black person who decided he is black and the oppressing class is white, it is the white people who are benefiting from the oppression of black people who have defined the terms, who have introduced racism into the equation.
Address racism and the resentment will evaporate. Equating the resentment with racism? That's just a trick that modern racists pull in order to avoid dealing with actual racism, which is the oppression of people of color for the benefit of the dominant group (i.e. "whites"). It's why Fox News can make a huge deal about two dumb black guys calling themselves "Black Panthers" and acting like dopes in front of a black community center in a black neighborhood and intimidating exactly no one as "racism," but won't even begin to address the actual racism on display (namely their race-bating, white fear stoking coverage of the non-event).
On topic though, if a word is offensive then it should be offensive no matter who uses it. Now context would matter. If the N word has changed meaning to be a term of endearment between friends then it should be fine for anyone to say no matter their race. If the word is still used in a negative "you are a stereotypical black man who is a lazy stupid thug" type way then it should be offensive no matter who says it. Now the question is how do we feel about people being offensive. Regular profanities have made it into most peoples casual conversations. Do we care that more offensive terms are becoming more casual? Some people do and some people are also still offended when people say S**t and F**k.
No, you're wrong. But that's not surprising, since you are simply mouthing the language of the modern racist, with the colorblindness that erases black identity.
Gailbraithe wrote:
That's not racism. That's racially radicalized resentment manifesting as prejudice against the dominant white supremacist majority. Racism is not okay when it's directed at white people, because that's impossible. And impossible things are not okay. White people can NEVER be the victims of racism. Racism exists solely to benefit the group defined as white people, that is the explicit and implicit purpose of racism.
Frazzled wrote:Easy:
-Use it in my home and you're never in my home again.
-Use it at my place of business and you'll never work here again.
-Use it in my presence and you're a friend you will be neither by the end of the sentence.
I've posted here for years and can think of very few posts I have ever agreed with Frazz this totally on.
I love the term "reverse racism". It suggest that racism is ok when it is directed against white people. It's not real racism it's "reverse racism". Because white kids have never been beaten up by a group of natives. Living in Canada I cannot personally comment on hostility from black people to white people as the only black people I knew grew up in Africa but I can tell you for certain that there were gangs of native kids that would wander around and beat the crap out of white kids for no other reason than they were white.
That's not racism. That's racially radicalized resentment manifesting as prejudice against the dominant white supremacist majority. Racism is not okay when it's directed at white people, because that's impossible. And impossible things are not okay. White people can NEVER be the victims of racism. Racism exists solely to benefit the group defined as white people, that is the explicit and implicit purpose of racism.
If a black person hates a white person because that white person is white, that is not racism. That is resentment, and it is a by-product of racism. In that case it is not the black person who decided he is black and the oppressing class is white, it is the white people who are benefiting from the oppression of black people who have defined the terms, who have introduced racism into the equation.
Address racism and the resentment will evaporate. Equating the resentment with racism? That's just a trick that modern racists pull in order to avoid dealing with actual racism, which is the oppression of people of color for the benefit of the dominant group (i.e. "whites"). It's why Fox News can make a huge deal about two dumb black guys calling themselves "Black Panthers" and acting like dopes in front of a black community center in a black neighborhood and intimidating exactly no one as "racism," but won't even begin to address the actual racism on display (namely their race-bating, white fear stoking coverage of the non-event).
While you make an eloquent argument, eloquence =/= being right, and american racial politics =/= the rest of the worlds' racial politics. Come down to my corner of the world, where there were never slaves. I mean, white people did some dastardly things down here for sure, but slavery was never one, and pretty much any african who's ever come here has come as a refugee or legitimate traveller. But saying that (for example) a chinese man can't racially discriminate against a maori man, or a tongan man can't racially discriminate against a white man, means that your head is so absolutely up your own ass that it's not even funny.
Frazzled wrote:Easy:
-Use it in my home and you're never in my home again.
-Use it at my place of business and you'll never work here again.
-Use it in my presence and you're a friend you will be neither by the end of the sentence.
Now would this apply no matter who was using the word?
I love the term "reverse racism". It suggest that racism is ok when it is directed against white people. It's not real racism it's "reverse racism". Because white kids have never been beaten up by a group of natives. Living in Canada I cannot personally comment on hostility from black people to white people as the only black people I knew grew up in Africa but I can tell you for certain that there were gangs of native kids that would wander around and beat the crap out of white kids for no other reason than they were white.
That's not racism. That's racially radicalized resentment manifesting as prejudice against the dominant white supremacist majority. Racism is not okay when it's directed at white people, because that's impossible. And impossible things are not okay. White people can NEVER be the victims of racism. Racism exists solely to benefit the group defined as white people, that is the explicit and implicit purpose of racism.
If a black person hates a white person because that white person is white, that is not racism. That is resentment, and it is a by-product of racism. In that case it is not the black person who decided he is black and the oppressing class is white, it is the white people who are benefiting from the oppression of black people who have defined the terms, who have introduced racism into the equation.
Address racism and the resentment will evaporate. Equating the resentment with racism? That's just a trick that modern racists pull in order to avoid dealing with actual racism, which is the oppression of people of color for the benefit of the dominant group (i.e. "whites"). It's why Fox News can make a huge deal about two dumb black guys calling themselves "Black Panthers" and acting like dopes in front of a black community center in a black neighborhood and intimidating exactly no one as "racism," but won't even begin to address the actual racism on display (namely their race-bating, white fear stoking coverage of the non-event).
This.
Racism is discrimination based on race. A black person hating a white person because they are white is the same thing as a white person hating a black person because they are black. A black person can be racist against white people. It has nothing to do about whose ancestors were slaves. It is just as much a hate crime for some black panthers to beat up some white guys as it would be for some neo-nazi's to beat up some black guys.
BrockRitcey wrote:
Racism is discrimination based on race. A black person hating a white person because they are white is the same thing as a white person hating a black person because they are black. A black person can be racist against white people. It has nothing to do about whose ancestors were slaves. It is just as much a hate crime for some black panthers to beat up some white guys as it would be for some neo-nazi's to beat up some black guys.
Now, you can be a very enlightened racist (like me), meaning that you still see race just as society trains you to, but you also see that you've been trained, and you work to overcome that training and to raise the consciousness of others. But the hardest part about overcoming race is that a) almost everyone you talk to is a racist and won't even attempt to address that, and b) because of all of those unconscious racists racism is still having a powerful effect of oppressing people of color and privileging white people.
But pretty much everyone is a racist. I won't say everyone, because I haven't met everyone, but outside of tribes living untouched in the Amazon and people like that, I doubt you could find anyone who is entirely without racist ideas.
Ugh, racism isnt seeing race, if I recognize a black person as black I am not a racist. If i feel that because I am born white, because my blood is european, and this makes me superior to that black person THEN I am a racist. Racism is the belief that someones ethnicity plays a large part in determining intelligence and what not. If I feel that half black/white kids are genetically inferior to me because they have black genes, I am racist. If I have a friend who is half black/white and I recognize this fact without it changing my opinion of him then I am not racist.
Monster Rain wrote:So it's racist to hold everyone to the same standard?
Not in the abstract, but in this particular context only racists want to "hold everyone to the same standard." Only racists want to define racism in such a way that it is impossible to deal with the realities of racism without being labeled a racist by the actual racists. When "holding everyone to the same standard" has the actual, practical effect of perpetuating racism, then yes, it is racist to want to hold everyone to the same standard.
Throwing around the word radical around too... Pot. Kettle. Black.
I used the word radicalized, not radical. Do you know what that word even means? I don't think you do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RustyKnight wrote:Because I'm white, I'm automatically a racist? Isn't that a racist sentiment?
No, because you think in terms of black and white, you are engaging in racism. That is what racism is: thinking about people in terms of race.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrockRitcey wrote:Racism is discrimination based on race. A black person hating a white person because they are white is the same thing as a white person hating a black person because they are black. A black person can be racist against white people. It has nothing to do about whose ancestors were slaves. It is just as much a hate crime for some black panthers to beat up some white guys as it would be for some neo-nazi's to beat up some black guys.
No, it's not. And the fact that you are arguing that tells me something about you: That you have never taken a sociology class, that you have never studied racism in any serious sense, and that you are walking into this argument armed with only your poor understanding of the dictionary.
What you have just said is ignorant. A black person hating a white person because they are white is PREJUDICE. Even a white person hating a black person because they are black is not racism. That''s still PREJUDICE. Prejudice is a product of racism, but prejudice is not racism itself.
Racism is the concept of human race. It a system of thought that identifies groups within the human species which are identified as "races." It was developed by Europeans and became the dominant part of European ideology during the 17th century as a means to justify the wholesale oppression and exploitation of non-Europeans. Racism always benefits white people, because that is the entire point of racism, to benefit white people. So when you say a person is racist towards another person, do you know what you're actually doing? Displaying gross ignorance. Racism is not a verb, it is not something you do to people.
All of which you would know if you, I dunno, took a freaking class on the subject. But racism is one of those topics that every dumbass in the world thinks they are qualified to speak about without a shred of understanding, without any education, and without any clue of exactly how boring, ignorant and stupid their blatherings are.
Seriously, from now on, if any of you are going to try to argue with me on this, I want credentials. I want the name of the school where you studied racism academically, and I want to know what classes you took on the subject. I myself took two introductory level sociology classes (at Shoreline Community College) specifically on the subject of racism while pursuing a degree in criminal justice. So its not like I'm some super-expert on this subject, but so far the people arguing with me don't seem to know anything. At all.
If you seriously cannot come up with a deeper understanding of racism than citing the freaking dictionary at me, which is just offensively stupid, then you really need to stop and ask yourself exactly how arrogant and stupid a person has to be to insist their opinion on a subject which they haven't studied at all be taken seriously just because you can bang on a keyboard.
Monster Rain wrote:So it's racist to hold everyone to the same standard?
Not in the abstract, but in this particular context only racists want to "hold everyone to the same standard." Only racists want to define racism in such a way that it is impossible to deal with the realities of racism without being labeled a racist by the actual racists. When "holding everyone to the same standard" has the actual, practical effect of perpetuating racism, then yes, it is racist to want to hold everyone to the same standard.
Throwing around the word radical around too... Pot. Kettle. Black.
I used the word radicalized, not radical. Do you know what that word even means? I don't think you do.
I stuck my head in OT and remembered why I left it in the first place. I can't have a highbrow conversation with someone who doesn't know what a root word is.
rad·i·cal·ized, rad·i·cal·iz·ing, rad·i·cal·iz·es
To make radical or more radical:
So your using your own definition of racism, not the one that the entire world recognizes as racism, but one that was told to you by a sociology professor. When dictating what words mean it is best to turn to the recognized definition of the word not one that is believed by a few people in a specific field of study.
I always like how someone takes an into into sociology and all of a sudden their opinion is right. Perhaps if you don't like other peoples opinions then you shouldn't be arguing on the internet. I would also assume that when people talk about racism they would be talking about common usage of the word and not its specific usage from your intro level classes. The author from your texts might have used racism to describe the system he proposed, but as with all art classes that is his opinion and not actual science or fact. Reading the opinions of 2, obviously well educated people does not make everything they say right.
If you want to argue about your sociology classes then perhaps you should go back to your community college and talk to other students.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Racism is the concept of human race. It a system of thought that identifies groups within the human species which are identified as "races." It was developed by Europeans and became the dominant part of European ideology during the 17th century as a means to justify the wholesale oppression and exploitation of non-Europeans.
Yes.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Racism always benefits white people, because that is the entire point of racism, to benefit white people.
No. Racism is any sort of action that works to reinforce the theory that race is a casual force in human activity. That is the point of racism. The fact that it has been most obviously exploited by white Europeans (itself a deeply Orientalist concept) does not change the fact that racism itself is not bound to white vs. everyone else.
Gailbraithe wrote:
So when you say a person is racist towards another person, do you know what you're actually doing? Displaying gross ignorance. Racism is not a verb, it is not something you do to people.
And, used in that fashion, racism is not functioning as a verb.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Seriously, from now on, if any of you are going to try to argue with me on this, I want credentials. I want the name of the school where you studied racism academically, and I want to know what classes you took on the subject.
Macalester College.
Race, Place, and Space
Gender in the African American Community
Female, and Minority Economics
Black Africa
African Americans: Movement Politics in American Minority Groups
African Music and Culture: Rasta to Rap
War on the African Continent
Before I get so very hot and heavy into this, I am going to answer the OP's question: There is one, and ONLY one, time that the N-word, or any racial slur, is appropriate.
What is that one time those word is appropriate? If anyone of another pigment starts with racial slurs first. That black guy just thought it was funny to call me a Cracker (and you see this? The black racial slur is censored, but the white one isn't. How's THAT for racism (Nothing against Dakka, you guys really have no choice))? I will call him N***** to his face. That hispanic "gangster" wants to call me a cracker too? His name just became Pedro, and I ask why he isn't wearing his sombrero. I only ever use racial slurs/stereotypes when someone else opens that door.
That is all.
As for those of you who are saying all muslims are bad... I'm not going to say stop watching Glenn Beck, but what I am going to say is: Remember that Glenn Beck is in the same boat as Obama, he wants the country to do what he wants and he is going to, willingly and knowingly or not, tell only what he wants you to hear. I would like to remind everyone what happens when everyone lumps an entire religion/cult/beleif system (I CAN use all those meaning the same thing, I'm a Deitist) or ethnicity into one group: WWII. Nuff said.
Gailbraithe, Let me ask you this: Do you beleive a fathers sins are his sons to bear?
Gailbraithe wrote:Thank you for the timely assist, Captain Obvious. I'm not quite sure what we would have done without you. Except, you know, carry on fine.
As you appear to be defining terms in any way you see fit, then demanding credentials to support an opposing argument... Moving on.
Yeah, but pretty much everyone is racist.
No, they aren't. If you mean 'racist' against certain types of ice cream, then sure, I totally get what you're saying even if it doesn't make much sense. We aren't talking about ice cream and using the term 'racist' in place of 'discriminatory', doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. We are all biased in certain ways and many are biased in ways that can be classified in generic groups.
Look down the list of -isms, tell me that people who do A.) automatically do B.) and I will tell you, you're wrong. I am quite sure that took care of whatever the hell you were talking about. People discriminate in many ways against other people, it does not automatically take the form of being racist over sexist, over hating people in general. You can be all three, which does not assume that everyone is much the same way. You can also act on things and choose not to act on things, even work against your own prejudice in whatever form it may be.
If 'everyone is racist' they are automatically sexist, ageist, homophobic and whatever else. They aren't and summarizing that large portion of 'everyone' as anything but generally discriminatory, is narrow-minded. While I would agree that there are large scale practices that are racist, I would be hard pressed to convince myself that every person involved in our society as a whole is racist. We don't need to be individually racist for a larger action of racism to take place. If the conversation was as simple as the color of ones skin, it would have all been worked out a long time ago.
Minority groups are consistently at the short end of any given stick. There are few ways around that and on a large scale it does make sense why society would develop systems that regard the largest parts as the most important. There are problems that need to be solved and talking about color is not the way to go about solving those problems. Getting beyond the abstract ideas and working with specific examples that do actually illustrate obvious racism, is the place to start.
Talk about how Oakland has lost way too many cops and how that is likely to instigate further racial tension, due to the fact that it is almost always based in fear from one side or another.
It's almost impossible not to be, because even if one recognizes that the idea of human races is scientifically falsifiable and factually incorrect, one still tends to notice other people's race. If you're a white person, then you're racist -- now before you react to that, let me explain what I mean: If you are identified as white by most people, that is because a) you have a low melanin count and b) most people are racist. If you accept this identification, if you believe that you are a white person, then you have embraced (almost certainly unconsciously, since we learn this stuff as little kids) the idea that white people exist, and if white people exist then race must exist, which means iptso facto if you think you are white, then you are a racist: a person who thinks of humans in terms of race.
What does white mean. What does black mean. What does brown mean. What does yellow mean.
If I paint myself black and think of myself PAINTED BLACK, I am now thinking of myself painted black. I can do the same for being painted yellow, white, brown, or even purple.
There is no solid meaning to any of those words, they are colors. If you want to talk abstractly about how it is to be a black man in America, there is a great deal to talk about, even if much of the conversation is limited to ideas that work on a scale beyond direct action.
Now, you can be a very enlightened racist (like me), meaning that you still see race just as society trains you to, but you also see that you've been trained, and you work to overcome that training and to raise the consciousness of others. But the hardest part about overcoming race is that a) almost everyone you talk to is a racist and won't even attempt to address that, and b) because of all of those unconscious racists racism is still having a powerful effect of oppressing people of color and privileging white people.
When I see a specific African American community and look around at the problems that the community faces due to local government, there are solutions to those problems and they are attainable. You can be a very real human, like me.
But pretty much everyone is a racist. I won't say everyone, because I haven't met everyone, but outside of tribes living untouched in the Amazon and people like that, I doubt you could find anyone who is entirely without racist ideas.
That seems to have an awful lot to do with how you are interpreting peoples actions.
Look, there are clearly some people in modern American society who think having sex with eight year old girls is not a heinous crime (frex: pedophiles, 7chan users), but no one (with any damn common sense at least) is going to correct you if you say "Americans think having sex with eight year old girls is totally gross and heinous." Despite their being several views on any given subject within any given community.
How did you end up there?
Okay.
Pretending everything is hunky-dory is not going to bring people together, because there is an aggrieved party and it's not white people. Black people are, collectively, really sick and tired of white people.
Everything isn't hunky-dory and opinions on why that is, along with how to deal with it, are diverse. It isn't divided along lines of black people and white people, nor is it any other combination of colors. There is a more sensible argument regarding class and color, even then I would consider it lacking in much of the important detail. You can look at one group to get a general idea, then get serious information by looking at specific sub-groups.
What does group A2 think. Why do they think that. What effect does it have on the subject, for group A2 to have that opinion. What interactions are there between group A2 and group B2/3 separately. What interactions are there between group A2 and the whole. Is there any problem within any situation presented, if so are there ways to deal with that problem directly.
When it gets right down to it, racism isn't really an issue for politics, except to the degree that the Republicans (and Fox News) use race-baiting and race-based fear to win elections. There isn't much more the government can do. From here on out, it basically comes down to individuals choosing who they want to be, and how they want to face the remaining problem of racism.
Keeping a subject within the national conversation is about as direct as you could possibly be. If we are talking about racism on a large, yet individualized scale, having a conversation about it might not solve anything, but it will certainly keep some options open. Not all solutions are positive ones, especially when you are talking about a specific group effected by a large scale problem. All negative solutions do not preclude the option for further solutions, which may in themselves be positive. Perhaps A can't happen before Z does, I really don't know.
That's not what were talking about. We're talking about a white guy turning around, intruding on a conversation between a group of black guys, and telling them to stop calling each of the n-word and justifying that action by asserting that there should be no double-standards. In this context, that essentially amounts to asserting that black people can't have their own opinion on the subject.
It basically is what we are talking about. Both people are entitled to their opinions and both are DEFINITELY entitled to be wrong in those opinions.
There is just as much of an argument against the use of a word, as there is for it. Just because 'one side' decides that they will be both for AND against it, doesn't mean that their argument is any more sound than the opposing one.
When a white person makes the "people are just people" argument in order to support an action that amounts to telling a black person what to do, black people will tend to suspect what the white person in question really means is "people are just white people."
I don't see why, besides a need to answer a question that a person who thought that might have. Is this man racist. That is a question that many people ask themselves, although many that have faced intense racism in the past might be more likely to think that way. People are just people, they really, really are. Thinking that a statement like that makes someone racist, is ignorant quite frankly.
What would be a perfectly reasonable statement, might sound an awful lot more like, "This person holds their opinion in as high a regard as I do". Beyond that you can also tell them they are completely wrong, as they are perfectly able to do so against you as well. Both of you can be wrong, just so my point is completely clear.
I was in the chow hall myself when this exact story came on the TV from a news channel. And the title of the story was exactly the same as the title of this thread. That's crazy. Anyway, I watched the story for a bit and thought about how I feel about it.
I woudn't use it. I understand that it appears to be somewhat acceptable in US black/African American culture. I also understand that language changes. I also understand that words only mean what we ascribe to them.
However, I still woudln't use it and I don't think it's the best choice of words for people to use.
youbedead wrote:So your using your own definition of racism, not the one that the entire world recognizes as racism, but one that was told to you by a sociology professor. When dictating what words mean it is best to turn to the recognized definition of the word not one that is believed by a few people in a specific field of study.
No, I'm using the actual definition of racism. The one that educated people use. The one that is widely recognized, but only summarized (and in the process grossly oversimplified) in the dictionary.
It is the definition used in social sciences. That doesn't make it a weird definition, that makes it the actual definition. Because discussions of racism fall under the purview of the social sciences. If you aren't talking about racism from the perspective of the social sciences, then you're talking about racism from an ignorant perspective.
Where would you turn for the recognized definition? The dictionary? Would you attempt to understand physics by looking up the word in the dictionary? How about chemistry? History? Mathematics?
If I say that mathematics is the systematic treatment of magnitude, relationships between figures and forms, and relations between quantities expressed symbolically, and thus this is mathematics:
How would you respond? Would you agree with me that this Picasso painting is a systematic treatment of magnitude, relationships between figures and forms, and relations between quantities expressed symbolically, and thus is mathematics? Of course not, because you've taken a math class, and you understand that there is more to mathematics than is expressed in that one sentence from a dictionary.
And that's what I'm telling you: You cannot understand what racism is by reading a dictionary. You have to actually study the issue, and many people have and are already studying it. And those people, social scientists, have a definition of racism that takes into account the history of the term, its use in contexts, and consequently leads to deeper understanding of the issue than reading a fething dictionary and thinking you're educated.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrockRitcey wrote:I always like how someone takes an into into sociology and all of a sudden their opinion is right. Perhaps if you don't like other peoples opinions then you shouldn't be arguing on the internet. I would also assume that when people talk about racism they would be talking about common usage of the word and not its specific usage from your intro level classes. The author from your texts might have used racism to describe the system he proposed, but as with all art classes that is his opinion and not actual science or fact. Reading the opinions of 2, obviously well educated people does not make everything they say right.
Yeah, pile on the anti-intellectualism, denigrate getting an education, and whatever you do don't mention the GED you failed to get. I never said my opinion was right because I've bothered to educate myself, I said my opinion was relatively informed compared to you. I don't see you actually countering that. Just whining about it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:No. Racism is any sort of action that works to reinforce the theory that race is a casual force in human activity. That is the point of racism. The fact that it has been most obviously exploited by white Europeans (itself a deeply Orientalist concept) does not change the fact that racism itself is not bound to white vs. everyone else.
That's a radical redefinition of racism which I am deeply suspicious of, as I've only seen it promoted by white supremacists who wish to turn every discussion of race into a discussion of "reverse racism," to deflect attention from the giant elephant in the room (white supremacy).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrexasaur wrote:
Yeah, but pretty much everyone is racist.
No, they aren't. If you mean 'racist' against certain types of ice cream, then sure, I totally get what you're saying even if it doesn't make much sense. We aren't talking about ice cream and using the term 'racist' in place of 'discriminatory', doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. We are all biased in certain ways and many are biased in ways that can be classified in generic groups.
I am not using racist in the place of discriminatory. You're the one who is conflating the two, not me. My point is that.
If 'everyone is racist' they are automatically sexist, ageist, homophobic and whatever else. They aren't and summarizing that large portion of 'everyone' as anything but generally discriminatory, is narrow-minded. While I would agree that there are large scale practices that are racist, I would be hard pressed to convince myself that every person involved in our society as a whole is racist. We don't need to be individually racist for a larger action of racism to take place. If the conversation was as simple as the color of ones skin, it would have all been worked out a long time ago.
What I am saying would make more sense if you would actually consider it, which you're clearly not. When I say that everyone is racist, I mean that everyone tends to think of race as a real thing. Not that people are hateful, not that they discriminate, only that they notice. When you meet a new person you are going to notice things about them. Whether they are male or female. If they are gay or straight. Young or old. Attractive or ugly. Black or white. Those are the sort of things our society trains us to recognize, and that's why pretty much everyone is racist, sexist, heterocentrist, agist, etc. Because
But pretty much everyone is a racist. I won't say everyone, because I haven't met everyone, but outside of tribes living untouched in the Amazon and people like that, I doubt you could find anyone who is entirely without racist ideas.
That seems to have an awful lot to do with how you are interpreting peoples actions.
It has nothing at all to do with interpreting people's actions. All you have to do is listen to people talk.
There is just as much of an argument against the use of a word, as there is for it. Just because 'one side' decides that they will be both for AND against it, doesn't mean that their argument is any more sound than the opposing one.
That's true. Which I acknowledged in my very first post on the subject. It's not a matter of what is right (which really can never be determined), it's a matter of who appears to have the power to decide what is right.
Basically it boils down to this: Black people have decided they have the right to set the rules regarding the use of the n-word.
White people get to make a choice in reaction to that: Do we say "Okay, sure, whatever you need to make you feel like you have power in this situation." or do we say "No, I want the right to set the rules regarding the use of the n-word."
I am of the opinion that there is no reason to not let black people decide the rules on the n-word. I can see absolutely no reason to argue the point. There is nothing at all to be gained by arguing the point. It's just a waste of time.
What about Asian racism? I've been out with like.. 5 Asian birds an nearly all of them told me that older Asians are super racist.. it seems a bit harsh to blame it all on johnny white man.
Frazzled wrote:Easy:
-Use it in my home and you're never in my home again.
-Use it at my place of business and you'll never work here again.
-Use it in my presence and you're a friend you will be neither by the end of the sentence.
Now would this apply no matter who was using the word?
Racism is the concept of human race. It a system of thought that identifies groups within the human species which are identified as "races." It was developed by Europeans and became the dominant part of European ideology during the 17th century as a means to justify the wholesale oppression and exploitation of non-Europeans.
Yes.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Racism always benefits white people, because that is the entire point of racism, to benefit white people.
No. Racism is any sort of action that works to reinforce the theory that race is a casual force in human activity. That is the point of racism. The fact that it has been most obviously exploited by white Europeans (itself a deeply Orientalist concept) does not change the fact that racism itself is not bound to white vs. everyone else.
Gailbraithe wrote:
So when you say a person is racist towards another person, do you know what you're actually doing? Displaying gross ignorance. Racism is not a verb, it is not something you do to people.
And, used in that fashion, racism is not functioning as a verb.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Seriously, from now on, if any of you are going to try to argue with me on this, I want credentials. I want the name of the school where you studied racism academically, and I want to know what classes you took on the subject.
Macalester College.
Race, Place, and Space
Gender in the African American Community
Female, and Minority Economics
Black Africa
African Americans: Movement Politics in American Minority Groups
African Music and Culture: Rasta to Rap
War on the African Continent
Snap.
In B4 Lock.
PS- I want to play @ Frazzled's place- Weiner Securities!!!!!
The word in question has a very specific background and meaning. There's no confusion about the 'n'-word. Regardless of who is using it, it refers to the same thing.
Australia has a slightly different situation with the word '[see forum posting rules]'. It is an oft-used racial slur, but it is also a surname, among other things. It was originally derived, in the negative sense, from the colloquial name for the raccoon, it's 'bandit mask' and their habit of stealing food. We also have a popular brand of cheese called '[see forum posting rules]'.
Now obviously the latin niger means 'black', but in every contemporary context, it is an offensive statement.
Look at the example in the example in the link below. The first case of the sports field was reasonable. The second, referring to the cheese I have mentioned above, is well worth debating. By this I mean, the name of the sports field was essentially offensive, whereas the brand of cheese is... well, just a brand name. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread394978/pg1
I believe that black people who choose to refer to each other as the word in question, whatever the context, should be welcome to do so, but should not be surprised if people take offense. Just like cursing and using terms in reference, there are places where it is acceptable, if not appropriate.
On the other hand, indigenous Australians do not call each other "my [see forum posting rules]", and I have never, ever heard, "'Sup, [see forum posting rules]!". They do use the N-word, though.
EDIT: It appears that the censors got in before me. You yanks are a funny bunch. The Forum Posting Rules links in this post are not instances of the n-word, but the colloqiual name for raccoons as mentioned above.
Racism or racialism n 1 the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority. 2 abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief.
BrockRitcey wrote:I always like how someone takes an into into sociology and all of a sudden their opinion is right. Perhaps if you don't like other peoples opinions then you shouldn't be arguing on the internet. I would also assume that when people talk about racism they would be talking about common usage of the word and not its specific usage from your intro level classes. The author from your texts might have used racism to describe the system he proposed, but as with all art classes that is his opinion and not actual science or fact. Reading the opinions of 2, obviously well educated people does not make everything they say right.
Yeah, pile on the anti-intellectualism, denigrate getting an education, and whatever you do don't mention the GED you failed to get. I never said my opinion was right because I've bothered to educate myself, I said my opinion was relatively informed compared to you. I don't see you actually countering that. Just whining about it.
I actually got a bachelor of science from Thompson Rivers University. It was mostly a big waste of time though, it took 4 years of getting A's to realize I didn't rally care for science.
Gailbraithe wrote:No, I'm using the Afrocentrist definition of racism. The one that Afrocentrists use which was developed using Critical Race Theory.
Fixed that for you.
Your definition of Racism is an alternate definition, one that attempts to view Racism in historical and sociological terms rather than ideological and biological ones. Unfortunately your definition leaves much to be desired as Afrocentrism is pretty much based and founded on pseudoscience and more importantly, pseudohistory. If you deleted every instance of a color in your definition you'd be closer to the one that sociologists at large use. Your definition is really only useful when looking at Racism as it exists in the West, most specifically, in the United States as it relates to the relationship between whites and blacks. Go to Europe after the Napoleonic Wars, and try applying your definition to the rise of Ethnic Nationalism. Or the racism that existed in the Arab ruled Caliphates. It doesn't work that well.
Also, some words have more than one definition. That's in the dictionary too
I learned that in Sociology class from my crazy bandana wearing bearded hippy professor. I want a cookie!
Gailbraithe wrote:No, I'm using the Afrocentrist definition of racism. The one that Afrocentrists use which was developed using Critical Race Theory.
Fixed that for you.
Your definition of Racism is an alternate definition, one that attempts to view Racism in historical and sociological terms rather than ideological and biological ones. Unfortunately your definition leaves much to be desired as Afrocentrism is pretty much based and founded on pseudoscience and more importantly, pseudohistory. If you deleted every instance of a color in your definition you'd be closer to the one that sociologists at large use. Your definition is really only useful when looking at Racism as it exists in the West, most specifically, in the United States as it relates to the relationship between whites and blacks. Go to Europe after the Napoleonic Wars, and try applying your definition to the rise of Ethnic Nationalism. Or the racism that existed in the Arab ruled Caliphates. It doesn't work that well.
Gailbraithe wrote:
That's a radical redefinition of racism which I am deeply suspicious of, as I've only seen it promoted by white supremacists who wish to turn every discussion of race into a discussion of "reverse racism," to deflect attention from the giant elephant in the room (white supremacy).
Well, 'reverse racism is itself a nonsense concept. Either something is racist or its not.
Regardless, the definition that I'm proffering is basically the accepted standard; carrying absolutely no association with any political or social cause. It doesn't attempt to hide the elephant at all, in fact its explicitly associated with it, as white supremacism is racism.
Compare this to your definition which explicitly marginalizes incidences in which race is used to define human interaction that are not associated with whiteness. This is a definition that was popularized by American reform thinkers like Christopher Doob with the express purpose of pushing other forms of racism out of the conversation. Its about as radical a definition as you can get, and it follows directly from the storytelling process featured in critical race theory; making it, to my mind, utter nonsense. Not because CRT is incapable of producing good work, but because the storytelling process is designed to control the manner in which people think by manipulating language. It isn't out to find truth, because it explicitly rejects the notion that truth exists.
Ktulhut wrote:And we're back on "sins of the father" again...
As a member of the race that pretty much monopolises expensive suburban housing, the vast majority of urban "greenspace" and higher white-collar jobs... I can safely say that I have no problem with feeling guilty for one more thing...
I, on the other hand, quite simply refuse to be held accountable for other peoples' actions because I happened to be born the same colour as them. Does that mean I ignore injustice, race-based or otherwise? No. Does it mean I ignore all the terrible things my ancestors or their relatives may have done? No. Does it mean I ignore all the prejudice and disadvantage that a lot of people experience, their only "crime" having been their race? No. Does it mean I sit idly while these things occur? No! I'm quite politically active, and in the summer I do volunteer work in my community.
But hell if I'm going to feel guilty over something I didn't do.
Frazzled wrote:Because gay has multiple meanings and isn't an insult. please fine me a meaning where N isn't?
To me, the only way gay is an insult, is when childish idiots use it as a descriptive term for something they don't like. I think maybe i will start saying "I don't like beans, they are down right hetro (or straight)." Or "That guy is so straight, what an idiot"
Mel
oh and also...
N-word is a noun in the English language, most notable for its usage in a pejorative context to refer to black people (generally people of Sub-Saharan African descent), and also as an informal slang term, among other contexts. It is a common ethnic slur. The word originated as a term used in a neutral context to refer to black people, as a variation of the Spanish/Portuguese noun negro, a descendant of the Latin adjective niger, meaning the color "black".
Frazzled wrote:I'll restate
Its never been used in a proper context by anyone I'd not rather see dead. How's that?
Not sure i understand you, all I was pointing out, was that it didn't begin as a derogatory term. I hate the word it's self and it should be banished from everyone's vocabulary.
Again I disagree strongly depedning on what N word you're actually referring to. Negro means a whole lot of things in different languages. The other N variant of that though was ALWAYS a derogatory term, starting in the time of US slavery.
"The word originated as a term used in a neutral context to refer to black people, as a variation of the Spanish/Portuguese noun negro, a descendant of the Latin adjective niger, meaning the color "black"."
Maybe i am ignorant, but the 'original' meaning was just to classify a group of people ala I am a lesbian... there are spinoffs that some find derogatory (like lezbo, and alot of slang terms I don't like). I understand the N word is a horrible word and it has for a very long time been a derogatory word, but it's original intent was just a classification.
Melanieshaman wrote:"The word originated as a term used in a neutral context to refer to black people, as a variation of the Spanish/Portuguese noun negro, a descendant of the Latin adjective niger, meaning the color "black"."
Maybe i am ignorant, but the 'original' meaning was just to classify a group of people ala I am a lesbian... there are spinoffs that some find derogatory (like lezbo, and alot of slang terms I don't like). I understand the N word is a horrible word and it has for a very long time been a derogatory word, but it's original intent was just a classification.
Not in the US it didn't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Odessey wrote:You know what? I'm just going to take the easy route on this one and blame Frazz.
Goddamn it Frazzled! Its all your fault....
Thats ok. I'll takes yas all on Optimus Prime style!
Melanieshaman wrote:"The word originated as a term used in a neutral context to refer to black people, as a variation of the Spanish/Portuguese noun negro, a descendant of the Latin adjective niger, meaning the color "black"."
Maybe i am ignorant, but the 'original' meaning was just to classify a group of people ala I am a lesbian... there are spinoffs that some find derogatory (like lezbo, and alot of slang terms I don't like). I understand the N word is a horrible word and it has for a very long time been a derogatory word, but it's original intent was just a classification.
Not in the US it didn't.
The article I read sounds like it started here... but I digress, i don't want to argue about it anymore, I have other things to do.
Frazzled wrote:I'll restate
Its never been used in a proper context by anyone I'd not rather see dead. How's that?
You'd rather see...
Wanda Sykes
Chris Rock
Dave Chappelle
Snoop Dogg
and the Creator of the Boondocks...
dead?
Man, that's kinda racist if you ask me...
Kidding aside, words only have the power we give them. As an Irishman with the work "Mick" in his last name twice... (McCormick) and a first name sounding like "Mick" I can tell you this, the word will only continue to hold the power of hate as long as we allow it to fill us with such (both in fear and hatred).
@Melanie, the original definition of the word as a racial slur (with two gs) is in reference to a "Lazy Good-For-Nothing". It is one of several slurs towards black folks back in the mid 1800s, each had their own definition. However, as far as racial slurs go... while they may have the most in quanitity, I think the other minorities got off MUCH worse if you look at the definitions of some of their racial slurs... (Look up the most common ones for Asians and Latinos if you really wanna feel disgusted...)
mattyrm wrote:What about Asian racism? I've been out with like.. 5 Asian birds an nearly all of them told me that older Asians are super racist.. it seems a bit harsh to blame it all on johnny white man.
It depends on what you mean by Asian racism. Many Asians who move to America adopt American racial attitudes, i.e. looking down on blacks and latinos. That's the exact same racism as practiced by the Klu Klux Klan.
If you mean long-standing prejudices like the Japanese attitude towards Koreans (Japanese people apparently think Koreans are like dogs), then that's not racism, that's ethnocentrism. When someone calls that racism its because they are uneducated and thus have a limited vocabulary. It should be fairly obvious that is not racism, because obviously the Japanese and Koreans are not different races according to the theories of race that comprise the foundation of racism, they're both Asians.
mattyrm wrote:What about Asian racism? I've been out with like.. 5 Asian birds an nearly all of them told me that older Asians are super racist.. it seems a bit harsh to blame it all on johnny white man.
It depends on what you mean by Asian racism. Many Asians who move to America adopt American racial attitudes, i.e. looking down on blacks and latinos. That's the exact same racism as practiced by the Klu Klux Klan.
If you mean long-standing prejudices like the Japanese attitude towards Koreans (Japanese people apparently think Koreans are like dogs), then that's not racism, that's ethnocentrism. When someone calls that racism its because they are uneducated and thus have a limited vocabulary. It should be fairly obvious that is not racism, because obviously the Japanese and Koreans are not different races according to the theories of race that comprise the foundation of racism, they're both Asians.
Oh, so we are still going off of esoteric definitions of the word "racism"?
My definition is when people wear large hats, only eat circus peanuts and poke themselves in the eye with a Sharp stick every Wednesday.
dogma wrote:Well, 'reverse racism is itself a nonsense concept. Either something is racist or its not.
Before I respond to the rest of this, let me explain something: I was specifically using the phrasing "reverse" racism, with the scare quotes around reverse because I agree with your position that something is either racism or it's not, and that reverse racism is a nonsensical concept. Scare quotes typically indicate a sarcastic or skeptical use of a term, as if someone else (the unspecific person being quoted) were supply the term. However, I also used the term because its commonly understood as shorthand for racialist prejudice from people of color towards whites.
Regardless, the definition that I'm proffering is basically the accepted standard; carrying absolutely no association with any political or social cause. It doesn't attempt to hide the elephant at all, in fact its explicitly associated with it, as white supremacism is racism.
Now that is simply untrue. The definition you are offering has come to dominate much of the discourse in the mainstream media, as was recently highlighted by the mainstream media's handling of Shirley Sherrod, but its not the accepted standard in academic discussions, and it is most definitely a definition that was created by the white supremacist movement and has over time become the standard definition offered by right-wing fronts for white supremacy, like the conservative movement and the GOP.
The definition of racism you are offering began as reverse racism, an idea promoted by white supremacist fronts to counter the activism of anti-racists. In the late seventies the term racism as was explicitly understood to mean the system of white supremacy embodied in institutions like Jim Crow and segregation and so it was necessary for conservatives to introduce this new term, "reverse racism," into the discourse in order to change the topic from the pressing issue of black poverty created by white racism to a more white supremacist palatable "blacks are bad" narrative. Once the idea that it was possible to talk about the "reverse racism" of "black racists" was popularized the "reverse" element was dropped and the campaign to label anyone who opposes covert white supremacy a racist began in earnest. The most astonishing success of this movement has been to popularize the entirely ridiculous idea that affirmative action, which is specifically designed as a partial remedy to the actual consequences of America's racist past, is a "racist" program. It is Orwellian doublespeak at its finest.
And exactly as people predicted in the 80's, the mainstream (i.e. white dominated) discourse on racism is no longer about the issue of white oppression of blacks, but about the dangers presented to the white majority by the anger and resentment of blacks. Thus the very conversation on racism becomes a new means of reinforcing white supremacy and marginalizing people of color.
Compare this to your definition which explicitly marginalizes incidences in which race is used to define human interaction that are not associated with whiteness. This is a definition that was popularized by American reform thinkers like Christopher Doob with the express purpose of pushing other forms of racism out of the conversation.
Well duh. First of all, those kinds of incidences are intimately connected to white supremacy. Racial tensions between Latinos and blacks are the result of both being forced to fight over scraps by white supremacy, and black resentment of whites is a fairly obviously direct result of white oppression of blacks. Dealing with the problem of continuing white supremacy does more to combat these sort of tensions than pointing them out to misdirect from the problem of continuing white supremacy.
Second, if those kinds of incidents aren't marginalized then they will naturally tend to dominate the discourse if the discourse is controlled by the white majority, which it is clearly is. Its much easier for a white audience to enjoy stories about black "racism," about white victims, stories that make white racism seem more trivial, than to hear the realities of racism: that blacks are ten times as likely to be imprisoned for minor crimes than whites, twice as likely to be unemployed, earn less, live shorter lives, etc. etc.
Its about as radical a definition as you can get, and it follows directly from the storytelling process featured in critical race theory; making it, to my mind, utter nonsense. Not because CRT is incapable of producing good work, but because the storytelling process is designed to control the manner in which people think by manipulating language. It isn't out to find truth, because it explicitly rejects the notion that truth exists.
While I appreciate that you're bringing a discussion of CRT (critical race theory for everyone else) to the table, I don't think that's accurate. I don't think you're making a very fair or reasonable attack on CRT, and more importantly I don't think you've identified the actual source of the definition. The term racism began in the natural sciences, and was used to mean the scientific theory of human race. It was later adopted by the social sciences to describe the system of white supremacy that had developed out of the social, political and religious application of the scientific theory of race. The redefinition of racism that made affirmative action a racist program is the radical one, and it was a reaction to the end of institutional, legally mandated racism. Really took off after Jesse Jackson ran for president and the right has been pounding the drum hard ever since Obama was elected.
Oh, and asking for proof of qualifications, then simply not responding with a "Thanks- I can see we are both able to discuss this subject in an acedemic manner"- was ignored.
akira5665 wrote:Oh, and asking for proof of qualifications, then simply not responding with a "Thanks- I can see we are both able to discuss this subject in an acedemic manner"- was ignored.
Pfft I loathe people like that.
"Prove to me you can talk about this!!"
*proof given*
"Anyhow- your'e a p**-p** head"
Meh.
Where is doctorate in arguementology when you need one?
If you're looking at it from a technical standpoint, we're talking about 2 different words as if they were a single word. Both start with 'nigg', but one word ends with an 'er' and the other ends with an 'a'.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Before I respond to the rest of this, let me explain something: I was specifically using the phrasing "reverse" racism, with the scare quotes around reverse because I agree with your position that something is either racism or it's not, and that reverse racism is a nonsensical concept. Scare quotes typically indicate a sarcastic or skeptical use of a term, as if someone else (the unspecific person being quoted) were supply the term. However, I also used the term because its commonly understood as shorthand for racialist prejudice from people of color towards whites.
That last part if why I commented on your usage of the term. I assumed that the quotes were based on sarcasm, and that sarcasm was emanating from your belief that it is impossible for anyone other than a white person to be racist. It bears noting that the usage of the term 'reverse racism' is a direct comment on the influence that CRT has exerted over the conversation, most likely because they're one of the few groups (excepting crazies like Neonazis, and people like me who regard CRT's attempt to craft a definition as nonsense from an academic standpoint) trying to exert an influence on the conversation.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Now that is simply untrue. The definition you are offering has come to dominate much of the discourse in the mainstream media, as was recently highlighted by the mainstream media's handling of Shirley Sherrod...
Its also quite popular in sociology, psychology, political demography, philosophy, ethics, regional studies, and many others.
Gailbraithe wrote:
...but its not the accepted standard in academic discussions...
Its not the accepted standard definition used by critical race theorists, but its pretty much the one that everyone else uses. I don't consider the definitions proffered by critical race theorists to be tenable simply because they acknowledge that they are knowingly defining terms in order to construe the debate in their favor. Everyone does this to some degree, but CRT doesn't even consider playing towards objectivity to be a laudable goal.
Gailbraithe wrote:
..and it is most definitely a definition that was created by the white supremacist movement and has over time become the standard definition offered by right-wing fronts for white supremacy, like the conservative movement and the GOP.
Why would a white supremacist place racism against black people, and racism against white people on equal footing? Why wouldn't he simply suppose that racism against black people was justified due to their inferiority? There's certainly a cultural legacy for the argument, and it would be incredibly easy to simply remove the genetic basis for 18th century racism; instead supposing that social factors have rendered black people inferior, and that correcting the problem is simply a waste of time.
Gailbraithe wrote:
The definition of racism you are offering began as reverse racism, an idea promoted by white supremacist fronts to counter the activism of anti-racists.
No, the definition I'm offering began as genetic racism, and with the dismissal of the genetic basis for racism, and racism in general, evolved into a category regarding sociological behavior in the course of two 'races' interacting.
Gailbraithe wrote:
In the late seventies the term racism as was explicitly understood to mean the system of white supremacy embodied in institutions like Jim Crow and segregation and so it was necessary for conservatives to introduce this new term, "reverse racism," into the discourse in order to change the topic from the pressing issue of black poverty created by white racism to a more white supremacist palatable "blacks are bad" narrative.
The general category of racism is much older than that. It was born out in the United States primarily through the racist behavior of whites towards blacks, and to a lesser and less physically significant degree by the racist behavior of blacks towards whites.
Honestly, its pretty clear to me that you've pigeonholed your understanding, perhaps unintentionally, by looking primarily at critical race theory, which is mostly associated with American sociological phenomenon.
Gailbraithe wrote:
The most astonishing success of this movement has been to popularize the entirely ridiculous idea that affirmative action, which is specifically designed as a partial remedy to the actual consequences of America's racist past, is a "racist" program. It is Orwellian doublespeak at its finest.
That's not doublespeak. Doublespeak would involve accepting that affirmative action worked both against racist ends, and for them. It is not doublespeak to suppose that affirmative action was intended to abate racism, but that it in fact furthers them. The former statement is a matter of contradicting ideas being used in concert, the latter is one of supposing unintended consequences.
Gailbraithe wrote:
And exactly as people predicted in the 80's, the mainstream (i.e. white dominated) discourse on racism is no longer about the issue of white oppression of blacks, but about the dangers presented to the white majority by the anger and resentment of blacks. Thus the very conversation on racism becomes a new means of reinforcing white supremacy and marginalizing people of color.
Yeah, I've heard this argument hundreds of times before. You have to presuppose two ideas for it to hold water.
First, that all people are racist in a way which causes them to attribute non-relevant characteristics to people because of their race. For example, assuming that a given black person is a criminal because he is black.
That supremacy and numerical superiority are the same thing.
The first cannot be proven, or at least has not been supported statistically, and the second is self-evidently false.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Well duh. First of all, those kinds of incidences are intimately connected to white supremacy. Racial tensions between Latinos and blacks are the result of both being forced to fight over scraps by white supremacy, and black resentment of whites is a fairly obviously direct result of white oppression of blacks. Dealing with the problem of continuing white supremacy does more to combat these sort of tensions than pointing them out to misdirect from the problem of continuing white supremacy.
So instead of "fighting for the scraps from the white's table" they can fight each other; attributing characteristics in an alternate attempt to one up one another? I mean, if everyone is racist this is bound to happen. Moreover, if everyone will always be racist, then what incentive do white people have to stop oppressing minorities? After all, if this is really a system of perpetual conflict between racial groups that we're discussing, then why would anyone sacrifice their position at the top? If your theory is correct, then it isn't very useful for convincing whites.
I'd also ask that if another racial group eventual gained truly controlling power, would we have to refer to its attempts to marginalize other racial groups as something other than racist?
Gailbraithe wrote:
Second, if those kinds of incidents aren't marginalized then they will naturally tend to dominate the discourse if the discourse is controlled by the white majority, which it is clearly is. Its much easier for a white audience to enjoy stories about black "racism," about white victims, stories that make white racism seem more trivial, than to hear the realities of racism: that blacks are ten times as likely to be imprisoned for minor crimes than whites, twice as likely to be unemployed, earn less, live shorter lives, etc. etc.
Where are all these stories about racism against whites? I haven't seen them. I mean, I've seen lots of commentary discussing how the NAACP is racist (which is pretty much a joke), and I've seen lots of commentary on how a lot of rhetoric surrounding racism is absurd (it is), but true white victim stories are not often given press.
Gailbraithe wrote:
The term racism began in the natural sciences, and was used to mean the scientific theory of human race. It was later adopted by the social sciences to describe the system of white supremacy that had developed out of the social, political and religious application of the scientific theory of race.
It was adopted by the social science to explain the effects of the theories produced by the natural sciences, and the fundamental tendencies which underlie them. It has been most often been associated with the racism of whites against others, because whites held power throughout the majority of the world during the time in which the concept was explored. Indeed, it was that power which first gave rise to the biological concept of racism. However, there is nothing other than that temporary power which has insured a position of dominance for whites, and there is nothing that necessarily precludes the term from applying to the attempts of any racial group to marginalize or stereotype another. That racism may not itself be oppressive, but it would still be racism.
Gailbraithe wrote:
The redefinition of racism that made affirmative action a racist program is the radical one, and it was a reaction to the end of institutional, legally mandated racism. Really took off after Jesse Jackson ran for president and the right has been pounding the drum hard ever since Obama was elected.
Racism was never redefined to make affirmative action a racist program. The (cogent) argument that supposes affirmative action is racist follows from the idea that the conditions in which the program operates have sufficiently changed so as to make a program that wasn't racist, racist. The CRT definition, which did not gain serious traction until after the new wave of arguments against affirmative action, exists only to interpose new criteria whereby affirmative action can never be racist. Not that it matters though, as not being racist does not render something discriminatory. Of course, its a bit silly to nominate something that is supposed to be discriminatory along racial lines as non-racist, but then people are often very silly.
Gailbraithe wrote:I am not using racist in the place of discriminatory. You're the one who is conflating the two, not me. My point is that.
I have been trying to understand your point and it really seems like you are just twisting words in whatever way you see fit.
Discrimination is a very broad term, it can encompass many forms of prejudice while leaving room for the reality of human life. I don't think people are angels but it would appear that people have a great deal of personalized experience that shapes the way that they view the world. There is no reason why everyone would be racist unless you have drastically redefined the general concept that most would agree upon.
A>B. A+B= Subspecies. In many cases A<B. >< meaning considered greater, alternatively lesser than. This is not an amazingly complicated term, I would be appreciative if a new term were developed to encompass what you are talking about and there does appear to be some terms that could be considered up to the job as it is. That has little to do with grabbing the reins of language and trying to wrestle it to the ground, though.
What I am saying would make more sense if you would actually consider it, which you're clearly not. When I say that everyone is racist, I mean that everyone tends to think of race as a real thing. Not that people are hateful, not that they discriminate, only that they notice. When you meet a new person you are going to notice things about them. Whether they are male or female. If they are gay or straight. Young or old. Attractive or ugly. Black or white. Those are the sort of things our society trains us to recognize, and that's why pretty much everyone is racist, sexist, heterocentrist, agist, etc. Because
But pretty much everyone is a racist. I won't say everyone, because I haven't met everyone, but outside of tribes living untouched in the Amazon and people like that, I doubt you could find anyone who is entirely without racist ideas.
You could simply say that people recongnize color and have much the same point, but again, that has little to do with fething that chicken. Keep on.
It has nothing at all to do with interpreting people's actions. All you have to do is listen to people talk.
The second you reference a legitimate study that reinforces your point, I will certainly hold this opinion in some regard. As it stands, I have talked to a lot of crazy people, some who might give the impression that they believe the universe hates them. The universe doesn't give a crap, they are specks. In some ways as an observer of their experience, I am much lesser than they could be perceived to be.
Talk to more people.
It's not a matter of what is right (which really can never be determined), it's a matter of who appears to have the power to decide what is right.
In what regard? Power appears to be a very limited resource from your point of view. It isn't.
Basically it boils down to this: Black people have decided they have the right to set the rules regarding the use of the n-word.
'Black people' meaning the people you have talked to in terms of this conversation.
White people get to make a choice in reaction to that: Do we say "Okay, sure, whatever you need to make you feel like you have power in this situation." or do we say "No, I want the right to set the rules regarding the use of the n-word."
I am of the opinion that there is no reason to not let black people decide the rules on the n-word. I can see absolutely no reason to argue the point. There is nothing at all to be gained by arguing the point. It's just a waste of time.
I am of the opinion that my opinion doesn't actually matter on this subject. People will do as they always have and always will.
My soapbox just can't be built tall enough to make my opinion matter substantially on this subject, and it would certainly appear that you have not developed space-age soap box technology either.
Have to say that when I was at university I was quite shocked to hear a group of black and asian school kids (probably about 12 years old) calling the single whilte child with them "white" in an insulting way (can't remember the exact wording of the insults as it was about 5-6 years ago in my first year).
I would agree with those who are saying that it is not the word itself but the context in the way it is said which is important in determining if it is offensive or not.
It does somewhat confuse me that it is so widely used in "popular" black culture, yet pounced on with great big heavy boots whenever a white person uses it no matter what the context was in its expression.
Like so many things with a root in history, I am thinking that it might be time to move on a bit and get over it. The French and the English have traditionally kicked the hell out of each other - doesn't mean we can't be friends now and forget that my great, great etc granddad stabbed yours in the leg 400 years ago.
.....All I really have to say is that the NAACP (National Association for the Advancment of Colored People)wouldn't be to happy with your reasoning using the N word Gailbraithe, as a matter of fact I'm pretty sure they think it's one of the things holding them back from the advancment of colored people. N word not exceptable for anyone.
EDIT* and I'm pretty sure a few of their credentials are way up to par as well. Skreet and da schoolin'.......
Ktulhut wrote:And we're back on "sins of the father" again...
As a member of the race that pretty much monopolises expensive suburban housing, the vast majority of urban "greenspace" and higher white-collar jobs... I can safely say that I have no problem with feeling guilty for one more thing...
Ok you feel guilty. I have more important things to do, like stare at paint.
Ktulhut wrote:And we're back on "sins of the father" again...
As a member of the race that pretty much monopolises expensive suburban housing, the vast majority of urban "greenspace" and higher white-collar jobs... I can safely say that I have no problem with feeling guilty for one more thing...
Ok you feel guilty. I have more important things to do, like stare at paint.
Considering the focus of this forum, your post loses most of its sarcastic impact upon reflection...
Gailbraithe wrote:
...but its not the accepted standard in academic discussions...
Its not the accepted standard definition used by critical race theorists, but its pretty much the one that everyone else uses. I don't consider the definitions proffered by critical race theorists to be tenable simply because they acknowledge that they are knowingly defining terms in order to construe the debate in their favor. Everyone does this to some degree, but CRT doesn't even consider playing towards objectivity to be a laudable goal.
That is simply not true. The definition you are offering is not remotely the standard in academia -- in fact, the definition offered by CRT has come to dominate academia. And the reason it has done so is because the definition offered by CRT is more historically accurate and more objectively useful that the definition you've offered as the supposed standard.
As for your criticisms of CRT, they are completely without merit. Objectivity as you define is the exact opposite of objectivity, it is an understanding of racism that is willfully ignorant of history and context. You claim that CRT doesn't consider objectivity a laudable goal, but what you really mean is that CRT actually takes reality into consideration and is not a uselessly abstracted, contextless definition of racism that only benefits white supremacy.
Why would a white supremacist place racism against black people, and racism against white people on equal footing? Why wouldn't he simply suppose that racism against black people was justified due to their inferiority? There's certainly a cultural legacy for the argument, and it would be incredibly easy to simply remove the genetic basis for 18th century racism; instead supposing that social factors have rendered black people inferior, and that correcting the problem is simply a waste of time.
I've already answered the first question: The white supremacist movement seeks to place "racism" from blacks towards whites on an equal footing with racism from whites towards blacks in order to trivialize the latter and refocus attention on the former. White supremacists can no longer argue in favor of overt racism or make claims to the inferiority of blacks because the general populace, while still deeply racist, is at least superficially opposed to racism and is race-conscious enough to recognize such arguments as deeply offensive.
Without getting too deep into the issue, the systems of white supremacy have a "cultural inertia," a tendency to remain in effect unless specifically addressed and remedied. The historic poverty of blacks caused by the systematic disenfranchisement of segregation will tend to perpetuate itself even in the absence of institutional segregation. Thus all the white supremacist has to do in order to maintain white supremacy is to prevent any remedy of white supremacy. If the white supremacist can define any attempt to address white supremacy (such as affirmative action programs) as racism, then he can turn the public's shallow disapproval of racism against efforts to address racism. If the white supremacist can make "black racism" an issue of equal importance to white racism, then discussions of white supremacy become obfuscated and trivialized. Which all serves to perpetuate white supremacy.
No, the definition I'm offering began as genetic racism, and with the dismissal of the genetic basis for racism, and racism in general, evolved into a category regarding sociological behavior in the course of two 'races' interacting.
No, that's simply not true. You're making things up. "Genetic racism" isn't even a thing, that's just some words you threw together. Do you mean scientific racism, which as I've already pointed out defines racism in exactly the same way that CRT does, and predates CRT?
Gailbraithe wrote:
In the late seventies the term racism as was explicitly understood to mean the system of white supremacy embodied in institutions like Jim Crow and segregation and so it was necessary for conservatives to introduce this new term, "reverse racism," into the discourse in order to change the topic from the pressing issue of black poverty created by white racism to a more white supremacist palatable "blacks are bad" narrative.
The general category of racism is much older than that. It was born out in the United States primarily through the racist behavior of whites towards blacks, and to a lesser and less physically significant degree by the racist behavior of blacks towards whites.
That totally fails to address or even acknowledge the point I made. You're making me want to pull my hair out, dude. The term racism, as I've already pointed out, originates in the 17th century with scientific theories of race intended to support European colonialism and the oppression of non-Europeans. The point of the quoted paragraph above is that IN THE 1970'S racism was explicitly understood to mean the system of white supremacy embodied in institutions like Jim Crow and segregation. Obviously the term is older than that -- its was popularized amongst Americans during World War 2 and was strongly associated with Nazi eugenics.
Honestly, its pretty clear to me that you've pigeonholed your understanding, perhaps unintentionally, by looking primarily at critical race theory, which is mostly associated with American sociological phenomenon.
Now you're just making personal attacks. My understanding of race is not pigeonholed, and that's a ridiculous and unfair accusation.
Gailbraithe wrote:
The most astonishing success of this movement has been to popularize the entirely ridiculous idea that affirmative action, which is specifically designed as a partial remedy to the actual consequences of America's racist past, is a "racist" program. It is Orwellian doublespeak at its finest.
That's not doublespeak. Doublespeak would involve accepting that affirmative action worked both against racist ends, and for them. It is not doublespeak to suppose that affirmative action was intended to abate racism, but that it in fact furthers them. The former statement is a matter of contradicting ideas being used in concert, the latter is one of supposing unintended consequences.
That's not what doublespeak means. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak]Doublespeak[/url (sometimes called doubletalk) is any language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words, resulting in a so-called communication bypass, a term which is itself an example of doublespeak. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs), intentional ambiguity, or the reversal of meaning (for example, calling war "peace", or maintaining the status quo "change").
So yes, defining a program to overcome the effects of racism as racist is doublespeak.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Well duh. First of all, those kinds of incidences are intimately connected to white supremacy. Racial tensions between Latinos and blacks are the result of both being forced to fight over scraps by white supremacy, and black resentment of whites is a fairly obviously direct result of white oppression of blacks. Dealing with the problem of continuing white supremacy does more to combat these sort of tensions than pointing them out to misdirect from the problem of continuing white supremacy.
So instead of "fighting for the scraps from the white's table" they can fight each other; attributing characteristics in an alternate attempt to one up one another? I mean, if everyone is racist this is bound to happen. Moreover, if everyone will always be racist, then what incentive do white people have to stop oppressing minorities? After all, if this is really a system of perpetual conflict between racial groups that we're discussing, then why would anyone sacrifice their position at the top? If your theory is correct, then it isn't very useful for convincing whites.
I don't even understand what you're trying to say here. Your first sentence makes no sense to me at all. They are currently fighting each other for "scraps from the white's table," so I can't figure out what you mean by saying instead of here. You seem to be saying "instead of doing X, they can do X" or "instead of doing this thing, they can do the same thing."
There is no reason to suppose that everyone will always be racist, and I don't know where that assertion is coming from (certainly not me).
I'm also not sure what your point is about convincing whites. I don't really care if whites are convinced or not, the reality is that white supremacy will end within the next few generations simply because population demographics. If whites need a pragmatic reason to address and dismantle white supremacy before it is torn down by force, then I would point to places like Zimbabwe and South Africa where white supremacist systems were torn down with a result of a lot of resentment driven black on white violence.
Where are all these stories about racism against whites? I haven't seen them. I mean, I've seen lots of commentary discussing how the NAACP is racist (which is pretty much a joke), and I've seen lots of commentary on how a lot of rhetoric surrounding racism is absurd (it is), but true white victim stories are not often given press.
Shirrely Sherrod, Van Jones, the "New Black Panthers," the NAACP commentary, the ACORN non-stories, Glenn "I think he's a racist. I think he has a deep seated hatred for white people." Beck, going all the way back to the story of the white boys on a bus being intimidated by black youths that made headlines days after Obama was elected. Few of these stories focus on actual victims, because actual stories of white victims of black "racism" are incredibly rare, but all of them focus on the idea that white people need to be afraid of black people's supposed racism.
Gailbraithe wrote:It was adopted by the social science to explain the effects of the theories produced by the natural sciences, and the fundamental tendencies which underlie them. It has been most often been associated with the racism of whites against others, because whites held power throughout the majority of the world during the time in which the concept was explored. Indeed, it was that power which first gave rise to the biological concept of racism. However, there is nothing other than that temporary power which has insured a position of dominance for whites, and there is nothing that necessarily precludes the term from applying to the attempts of any racial group to marginalize or stereotype another. That racism may not itself be oppressive, but it would still be racism.
Ah hah, so here you admit I'm right about where the term racism comes from. You are right that there is nothing that "necessarily" precludes applying the term to any example of prejudice with a racial component, but as I've already point out several times that only serves the purposes of maintaining that power which has insured a position of dominance for whites by refocusing attention from that oppressive power to these trivial, marginal cases of prejudice in the absence of power.
Your redefinition of racism can only serve one agenda: To distract from oppressive racism by side-tracking every conversation about that oppressive racism into discussions of non-oppressive, toothless "racism." Thus every conversation about endemic black poverty becomes a conversation about why the Japanese hate the Koreans, and other utterly pointless and trivial distractions.
But I'm done with this conversation. I've been informed by the mods that my participation in this conversation is borderline "trolling," and so I won't be responding further. I just wanted to give your post the response it deserves for being an obviously honest attempt at a cogent, on-point argument.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Your redefinition of racism can only serve one agenda: To distract from oppressive racism by side-tracking every conversation about that oppressive racism into discussions of non-oppressive, toothless "racism." Thus every conversation about endemic black poverty becomes a conversation about why the Japanese hate the Koreans, and other utterly pointless and trivial distractions.
If by "pointless and trivial" you mean "completely destroys my argument that racism only benefits white people" I agree with you completely.
Gailbraithe wrote:
That is simply not true. The definition you are offering is not remotely the standard in academia -- in fact, the definition offered by CRT has come to dominate academia.
Shall we compare criteria again? I mean, Community College is nice for some people, and some disciplines, but not others.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Objectivity as you define is the exact opposite of objectivity, it is an understanding of racism that is willfully ignorant of history and context.
Yes, that is what it means to be objective. If you do not know what words mean, then you should stop using them.
Sorry, I would debate with you, but you sound like nothing more than one of my "revolutionized" ex-girlfriends.
Which is to say that I threaten you with "Tah!".
by right-wing fronts for white supremacy, like the conservative movement and the GOP.
Wheeeee! Nothing says "white supremacy" quite like being the party that was formed on an anti-slavery agenda.
The most astonishing success of this movement has been to popularize the entirely ridiculous idea that affirmative action, which is specifically designed as a partial remedy to the actual consequences of America's racist past, is a "racist" program.
That's because it IS racist. Helping (or harming) somebody purely on the basis of their race is called "racism."
But you're astonished that we haven't been brainwashed by your CRT thinking? Seriously dude, wake up. Just because you believe your own lies, don't you have the intelligence to know that most people haven't even been EXPOSED to them, much less been forcibly brainwashed with them?
You're like one of these conspiracy theorists that chuckles at everyone else's "ignorance." "Oh, sure, and now you're gonna tell me aliens didn't build the pyramids? Please, don't waste my time..."
Racial tensions between Latinos and blacks are the result of both being forced to fight over scraps by white supremacy
Right, TOTALLY! Cause, without white people to mess things up, people NEVER form antagonistic groups based on race, religion, etc. NEVER. NEVER EVER.
all of them focus on the idea that white people need to be afraid of black people's supposed racism.
False.
As one of the white supremacist conservatives that you suggest we ACTUALLY should be afraid of, and thus as the intended audience of the news items you mention, I think I'm better qualified to see what their intention is.
The intention is to demonstrate the hypocrisy and untrustworthiness of the American left, such as yourself. I'm sure some people are genuinely scared of black people. The great majority of conservatives are not. The great majority of conservatives simple hope that race will cease to be an issue, that everyone will get along.
They view the "race card" as being purely political, something that the American left uses to garner political power and moral highground. They also view the left as hypocritical, the only deliberate racists of note left in America, people who make their decisions primarily upon race, who seek to empower fringe elements as a means of maintaining racial division and the political power they gain from it.
Conservatives don't think black kids are beating up white kids on busses because blacks are evil, they think it's because the left is emitting so much racially charged invective, and so twisting the language and perception, that it's damaging the psychology of young black people to the point that they feel justified in violence against non-blacks.
It's not about "look at how blacks act, we've got to turn them back into slaves!"
It's about "look how people act when they're exposed to the lies of the race industry."
Just look at you... You've decided that "racism" is only something that whites do to other people. You've decided that the only acceptable scholarship on race is the sort of twisted, left aligned false intellectualism that agrees with that view.
Can you seriously not see the brainwashing you've absorbed, and now attempt to inflict on the rest of us? You're trying to promote language destruction and thought control as noble, simply because they suit your politics. Racism has a meaning, and it's bigger than white people, it's bigger than America circa 1865, it's bigger than the American left's political needs circa 2010.
Racism has existed for as long as there have been races. It exists in all places and all times. You're promoting language designed to eliminate the discussion of any form of racism besides white racism. You're literally trying to TAKE AWAY THE WORDS for any other form of racism.
Please stop pretending that a ridiculous, politically motivated academic movement is now the gold standard. Two hundred years ago, one could have found university professors who could explain in detail how blacks are scientifically closer to monkeys than white people. They were politically motivated idiots. So are the people behind CRT. At least the 'blacks are monkeys" crowd PRETENDED to be scientific. CRT doesn't even get that far. It's false scholarship that doesn't even have the decency to be scholarly. It's just "SHUT UP and do what I say, I have black friends, and they're sad sometimes."
Gailbraithe wrote:
Objectivity as you define is the exact opposite of objectivity, it is an understanding of racism that is willfully ignorant of history and context.
Yes, that is what it means to be objective. If you do not know what words mean, then you should stop using them.
That is not what objectivity means at all. Objectivity demands setting aside one's personal feelings and subjective impressions in favor of consideration of objects external to the mind. To say that objectivity demands one ignore history and context goes beyond ridiculousness into being outright disingenuous.
Like I said, I'm done with this debate at mod request, but I'm not going to let that outright fabrication you just posted (nestled between some petty personal attacks, which demonstrate the real strength of your position) fly. For someone who is quick to accuse someone else of not knowing what words mean, that was quite the doozy of a post.
You literally don't have a clue what you're talking about.
I'm excited to hear what faux-intellectual movement it is that defines "done with this debate" as "popping in repeatedly to be wrong and insulting, and then remind everyone that you're done with the debate."
I'm pretty sure that, whatever it is, it's WIDELY accepted, and also one of the many reasons you're better than us.
Gailbraithe wrote:
That is not what objectivity means at all. Objectivity demands setting aside one's personal feelings and subjective impressions in favor of consideration of objects external to the mind. To say that objectivity demands one ignore history and context goes beyond ridiculousness into being outright disingenuous.
Gailbraithe wrote:
That is not what objectivity means at all. Objectivity demands setting aside one's personal feelings and subjective impressions in favor of consideration of objects external to the mind. To say that objectivity demands one ignore history and context goes beyond ridiculousness into being outright disingenuous.
Sweet, sweet irony.
I was thinking the same thing this entire thread when he started saying White people were responsible for all the race-related evils of modern society. Not like that's a racist statement AT ALL
Gailbraithe wrote:
That is not what objectivity means at all. Objectivity demands setting aside one's personal feelings and subjective impressions in favor of consideration of objects external to the mind. To say that objectivity demands one ignore history and context goes beyond ridiculousness into being outright disingenuous.
Sweet, sweet irony.
I was thinking the same thing this entire thread when he started saying White people were responsible for all the race-related evils of modern society. Not like that's a racist statement AT ALL
I really am trying to walk away from this argument, but if you guys are going to be world-class jerks and mock my back as I walk away, then I kind of have to turn around.
First of all, there is nothing ironic about what I said. That's just insulting nonsense from Monster Rain, trying pathetically to implicate that my argument is based on personal feelings and subjective impressions. That's ludicrous, baseless, and really only demonstrates how feeble Monster Rain's ability to argue a point is.
Second, metalifan is completely misrepresenting my point. I did not say that white people were responsible for all the race-related evils of modern society, I said that racism was developed by Europeans to justify the oppression of people of color. That is HISTORY. You can deny it til you're blue in the face, but it remains HISTORY. Africans did not declare themselves the black race and then travel to Europe and say "Hey, we're clearly not as human as you people, why don't you conquer our lands, enslave our people, and ship us to the other side of the world to do your menial labor?" That's not what happened.
It is not racist to point out that racism was invented by Europeans as part of the system of colonialist imperialism, and I am hardly arrogogant or conceited for thinking my time is better used not arguing with KNUCKLE DRAGGING MORONS who think that acknowledging where racism came from and what purpose it served is "racist." This is why I hate getting into these debates online. The whole wargaming community is sickeningly filled with the worst kinds of racist, and a topic like this brings them out of the woodwork.
I am done talk to any of you. You people are fools. My only hope is that other people reading this recognize a fundamental truth in all of the bs you clods are throwing around: That he civil rights era was only fifty years ago, and that there are still many people alive who remember segregation, and there are still many people in power who fought for segregation, and that the effects of 400 years of racism where felt primarily by people of color.
People of color in America are still lagging behind whites in every possible measure. Study after study proves that being a person of color makes it harder to find a job, makes it harder to get a promotion, makes it harder to get access to health care, to government services, etc. This is still a DEEPLY racist country, a country that refuses to actually deal with racism, and people like Dogam, Monster Rain, and metallifan -- all of whom are white -- are the real racists.
They know better than to call black people [see forum posting rules], and they know better than to demand whites only drinking fountains, but their entire agenda serves only one purpose: to ensure that white supremacy is maintained. That is what they want. White power forever. These people are the kind of scum that Nazis rely on to get into power. They have nothing but hatred in their hearts, and nothing but idiocy in their small minds.
These people LOVE racism, and they want it to continue forever. That is why they put so much effort into attacking people like me, who have an education. That is why they attack having an education as "political brainwashing," all while denying that that their own arguments can all be traced back to white power movements and groups like Christian Identity and the Aryan Nation. That is why they define addressing racism as racism, and that is why they are so deeply, deeply terrified of acknowledging that white people have been the prime instigators and benefactors of racism for four hundred years.
Now go on, schumcks. Get your inane, idiotic last words in, and continue demonstrating how very small-minded you worthless dogs really are.
Gailbraithe wrote:
That is not what objectivity means at all. Objectivity demands setting aside one's personal feelings and subjective impressions in favor of consideration of objects external to the mind. To say that objectivity demands one ignore history and context goes beyond ridiculousness into being outright disingenuous.
Sweet, sweet irony.
I was thinking the same thing this entire thread when he started saying White people were responsible for all the race-related evils of modern society. Not like that's a racist statement AT ALL
I know that I like to claim objectivity right after I denounce all opposing viewpoints as the rantings of uneducated fools.
And white people can't be the victim of Racism as it can only benefit them, Metallifan. Just ask all the white people that made out like bandits in Rwanda and are currently benefiting somehow in Darfur.
Gailbraithe wrote:This is still a DEEPLY racist country, a country that refuses to actually deal with racism, and people like Dogam, Monster Rain, and metallifan -- all of whom are white -- are the real racists.
That is the first time I've ever been seriously called a racist. How hysterical.
I'll just let that stand as a testament to how little you know about what you're raving about.
Oh righ! Those white guys! Man, It's too bad we're good friends with those guys, thus making us racist by association. Steve was always my favorite of the bunch. Such a joker, that guy.
EDIT: Monster, why are we quoting me in something I never said?Wait... No... Oh god... OH JESUS CHRIST! I HAVE AN EVIL TWIN! OH F***ING DAMNIT!
metallifan wrote:Oh righ! Those white guys! Man, It's too bad we're good friends with those guys, thus making us racist by association. Steve was always my favorite of the bunch. Such a joker, that guy.
I'll have to let all of my friends that happen to be "people of color" that I'm a Klansman according to some cat on the internets.
metallifan wrote:Oh righ! Those white guys! Man, It's too bad we're good friends with those guys, thus making us racist by association. Steve was always my favorite of the bunch. Such a joker, that guy.
EDIT: Monster, why are we quoting me in something I never said?Wait... No... Oh god... OH JESUS CHRIST! I HAVE AN EVIL TWIN! OH F***ING DAMNIT!
