|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a Democrat, let me be the first one to say that this is one Democrat that needs to be fired, or seriously whacked with the clue bat. She seems to be one of those people that is so obsessed with other people's (read: white males) racism, that she becomes racist herself.
Maybe we could start up a intervention group, like they have for alcoholics, for people like Ms. Brown and Hillary Clinton.
"You may be in denial now, but eventually you must come to accept the fact that you have been a feminazi bitch, and move on."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:59 PM February 27th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, This is blatant racism and should be handled as such.
As far as her refering to an HISPANIC man as "White", this doesn't suprise me in the least.
In my own exerience as an Indian dealing with and observeing Blacks, They (Blacks) lump Hispanics as well as Indians in the "White" catagorie.
Part of this is due to the fact that peolpe in this country see the "race issue" as a matter of "Black" and "White". In other words if you aren't "White" then you have to be "Black" and if you aren't "Black" you have to be "White".
Too many people think that the ONLY racial issues that must be settled is that between Blacks and Whites. Once that is accomplished there will be racial harmony.
WRONG! there are still MANY other ethnic groups, includeing mine, that will need to be ackowledged before ANY "racial harmony" will ever come to fruition.
The fact that we as Indians and Hispanics are always categorized as "White" is offensive to us.
Not because we are anti-White, but because it robs us of our identity as well as our right to self-determination.
So as far as I'm conserned this congresswoman is GUILTY of that very thing.
She is a racist, plain and simple. To me she is no better than a Ku Klux Klan member saying the same type of thing to any minority group.
I hope she is made to apologize for those remarks, just in the same way any White or especialy any MAN would have to.
"You all look alike, to me.", indeed!
geeze, what a Jerk!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They (Blacks) lump Hispanics as well as Indians in the "White" catagorie.
One of my dad's Air Force buddies was from China, and his parents almost disowned him for marrying a girl from "the wrong part" of China. Just as with violence, no one group has a monopoly on racism.
And Thundercloud (kickass name btw), I've been meaning to ask you something for a while. This is completely offtopic to men's issues, although it does have to do with racism. Do you ever watch South Park? If you haven't seen this episode, I'll have to find you a link to a file, or mail you a cd (I'm serious). I almost shit my liver from laughing so hard, and I'm not even Indian!Episode 707:
Red Man's Greed
Original Air Date: 04-30-2003
The owners of the Three Feathers Indian Casino have acquired the town of South Park. The citizens are being forced off their land to make way for a new super highway. Faced with saying goodbye to their friends and their way of life, the boys rally the townspeople to fight back against the rich and powerful Indians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:27 PM February 27th, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Scudsucker,
Actually, I HAVE heared at least one black person refer to an Asian man as a "White guy". I DID forget about that.
To anyone here who is of Asian desent, you have my apologies. I know what it is like to be left out of the "race debate".
As far as the "Redman's greed" episode of "South park", I have heared about it, But I do not have cable or sattlelight(SP?) TV. so, no I haven't seen it. I heared it was really funny, though.
A bit anti-white, but funny, never the less.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:07 PM February 27th, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know if you guys already know these terms but:
Twinkie - yellow on the outside, white on the inside. Asian who acts white.
Oreo - black guy who acts white.
Oreo Oops! - white guy who acts black. (it may be actually called Uh-oh! Oreo after checking oreo.com)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:32 PM February 27th, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
And don't forget "Apple".
That's our people's word for someone who's red on the outside but white on the inside.
I never care much for these lables, though.
They tend to just divide folks.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:37 PM March 4th, 2004 EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
Why do we even need a label? What happened to Martin Luthor King's dream that we be known simply "for the content of our charachter"?
Thundercloud is right: labels divide. IMO, we are not African-Americans, Latin-Americans, Itish-americans, etc. We are, or should be, Americans.
Craig
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:54 AM February 28th, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
"She seems to be one of those people that is so obsessed with other people's (read: white males) racism, that she becomes racist herself.
It appears she has fallen victim to that old axiom, "Be careful of what you hate lest you become it."
I understand how upset she is about all the deaths in Haiti, and think she may have been venting her outrage. We appear to be entering a time in our nation when vituperative outbursts are accelerating.
The country is very polarized in its ideologies, and we are at war not only abroad but at home as we face shadowy terrorist threats. Nerves are frayed, and this fall we will have an election. No doubt it will be controversial. The need for cool heads in society is at a premium.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:45 PM February 27th, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Why isn't this in the mainstream media? Why is it when idiots are black they are not held to the same standard as white idiots?
She should be publicly shamed and forced to apologize. And not just because one of the "white men" happened to be Hispanic. No one should be denigrated because of their ethnic background.
Hold the bitch's feet to the fire.
TLE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In her clarifying statements, whether genuine or self-saving, Ms. Brown stated that her comments in context were meant to express that "all your policies towards Haiti are the same... and obviously racist."
She was referring to the discrepancies between our government's open-arms welcoming of Cuban "political" refugees and our hostile turning back of all Haitians seeking U.S. asylum.
For the foreign policy wonks among us, it's worth noting that the unfolding events in Haiti have all the earmarks of a classic CIA operation.
Destroy the Haitian economy, disarm the elected government, provide covert tactical and military assistance to a "democratic rebel opposition," and watch the chaos burn.
The democratic rebels are led by a U.S. citizen who has made millions from his Haitian sweatshops. The rebel military command is composed of holdovers from the dictatorship that Aristide defeated in a free election in 1991.
Of one thing you can be sure, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with real democracy.
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know for as much as feminazis go on about men looking at their tits when they talk to them just zip down your fly and see how long THAT goes unnoticed. I remember once in a moment of frustration trying to get my point across to a feminazi...I pulled my belt buckle out...looked down the front of my pants and said:-
"Oh Mighty Magic Wand!!!Oh Ponderous and all Powerful Key to the City!!! Make all the things that make feminists so chronicly dissatisfied GO AWAY!!!...What? You are not going to do that? You are just going to be a PRICK are you? Hmmm...no wonder feminists don't like you!!!"
I then said:-
" Ï really wish you wouldn't talk to my DICK when you are talking to me"
The reason why they all look the same is her fixation with men's crotches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
shows me exactly the difference between Republicans and Democrats: republicans get persecuted when remarks SEEM racist; democrats are persecuted only when remarks are ANTI democratic party.
Sheesh.
The Shark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:58 AM February 28th, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
This thread represents exactly the problem with many other men's forums -- thankfully not Men's Activism -- that veer off men's issues into racial issues, political identity, homophobia, etc. The one thing this forum does not need is to venture into the volatile and divisive arena of race relations. With the feminist juggernaut crushing us, with many problems facing us not even caused by the fems, we simply cannot afford to be distracted. I have seen similar threads on other boards wreak more havoc to unity than a dozen trolls ever could. C'mon fellas, focus, focus.
If this forum isn't about men's activism, we may as well discuss the depletion of the ozone layer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A lecture on discussion thread manners seems a little incongruous from someone who apparently can't take the few minutes' time and trouble to identify him (or her?) self, so that the rest of us can know who we're discussing with.
Actually, an appeal to "unity" doesn't do much for me; most who make such appeals seem to want me to toe some ideological line dear to them. The truth is "divisive" only for those who won't face it.
For me the purpose of discussion is to uncover and explore the truth, and my main objection to feminism (and race politics such as represented by this woman) is that it's both based on lies and a power trip designed to suppress the truth. I think it's very much worth taking a look at how and why feminism and race politics seem to work so closely together.
In any case, this thread, like all others, will be current for a day or two, then fade into the background. Don't let it ruin your day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:14 PM February 28th, 2004 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree.
The "race issue" and the "gender issue" often go hand in hand, IMO.
These days these things are often rooted in "political correctness".
the dogma of political correctness says that because Whites "did Blacks wrong" that now Blacks can say whatever they want to whites and whites have to sit there and take it or agree with the critisism whether it is true or not. Supposedly, as an Indian I to have been given cart-blanch to say any racist thing about Whites that I want to, again whether it is based in truth or not, because SOME Whites stole my land and killed alot of my people. But in both my people's case and in the case of Black people the Whites who did these things are long DEAD. But we are still given "permission" to treat ALL Whites as if they are the SAME PEOPLE who did what was done to us. THEY ARE NOT!
The same thing goes for men, in general.
Because SOME men in the past oppressed women ALL men are treated as if they are the SAME men who did what was done to women, again we are NOT.
Note also that the "evil men" lable applies to ALL men, not just White men. All men regardless of color, race, or creed are "Guilty".
The White guy down the street from me didn't steal my land. He lives on land stolen from me, but that does not make him guilty. He also didn't kill any of my tribe or anyone else's, that I know of, so why would I treat him as if he did?!?
As a Man, I have never oppressed a woman or women in general, So then, Why am I and ALL men living today treated as if we have oppressed women?!?
My (rather long winded) point is, is that both the "Race issue" and the "gender issue" are rooted in the SAME problems; 'Political correctness' and Socialism. Unless these things are stopped we men, no we human beings will NEVER have peace. Ever.
So I agree this subject is very realevant to this forum.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:29 PM February 28th, 2004 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Well said, TC. That an elected female representative of all people in a district is given free reign to characterize her political opponents as "a bunch of white men" is certainly on topic.
It denigrates not just "white men" but all men. The anon post makes no sense to me.
TLE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But we are still given "permission" to treat ALL Whites as if they are the SAME PEOPLE who did what was done to us. THEY ARE NOT!
Heh. I should hope not...I'm white, but my great-grandparents emigrated from Ireland and Russia, where *they* were being oppressed.
And hey, I found that South Park episode. Its not really anti white in general, but anti towards racist attitudes held towards Indians that were common in in the 50's and made a lot of money for John Wayne. Lets just say its a little high on the sarcastic irony, and gets really good about half ways through the episode.
You can download the episode here. Lemme know if you've downloaded it so I can delete it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:57 PM March 1st, 2004 EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
Scudsucker.
Okay, I saw it.
You were right it was pretty funny. and it seemed more anti-racism than anti-any-group-of-people, just like you said.
Thanks, I needed a laugh.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent post, Thundercloud. You amaze me with your open mind and ability to give up the 'easy' route of victimhood. Many, many people who are minorities and/or women cannot, or choose not to do so.
By staying victimized, you stay victimized, if that makes any sense.
A friend of my brothers was the son of a chief in one of the tribes in upstate NY. He went to school for engineering, graduated with honors, and was then in a position to help others of his tribe. By letting go of the victimhood, he was able to do much for his own, as opposed to wallowing in victimhood and helping no one.
I think that is what men have to do here. Get over the finger pointing and get moving. Instead of looking at what was done wrong, look at what we want to have done right. While identifying the causes are important, it is only the first step.
What are the goals, and what do we have to do to get there. At some point we must make that move. The D&G movement was a great start. This men's conferance is another.
Hey, Thundercloud, you going to that?
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:29 PM March 1st, 2004 EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
"Hey, Thundercloud, you going to that?"
Unfortunatly, Jen, No.
This may sound like a cop-out, but I am physicaly disabled and it is hard for me to get around, especialy long distances.
If any meetings or protests are ever held in Indiana, where I live, I would probably show up there, though.
(You'll KNOW me when you see me, too. I'm sort of a large guy with long black-brown hair worn in braids. I literally stand out in most crowds.)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why is it not OK to refer to this woman as "black"? If people whose ancestors came from Africa must be described as African-American, why am I not European-American? I'm willing to be polite and avoid labels with unpleasant connotations, but if I have to use seven syllables where one would do, I expect the same "courtesy" in return.
But of course this "congressperson" is not only African-American, but also a woman; she has a double-victim license to do and say whatever she feels like, and never be held responsible for anything.
Here in Santa Fe, New Mexico, there are officially three kinds of people: Indian (a.k.a. "Native American" -- as if I wasn't born here too), Spanish (not Hispanic, and don't call them Mexican), and Anglo -- which means everyone else, including any from Africa, Asia, or Mars, for that matter. Must be the only place (outside of Amish country) where a black person is called English. There aren't many African-Americans here, and they've had a hard time making themselves "special" in the face of the area's centuries of unique history.
I'm sorry to say that, just as in the case of women, my liberal democratic upbringing has finally been overwhelmed by the observed behavior of black people themselves. I know a few who have impressed me considerably -- not least because of what they've had to overcome -- but most just don't seem to be very smart.
Why is Haiti so different from its neighboring countries? Not that they are models of stability and prosperity, but Haiti has always been orders of magnitude worse than any other nation in the Western Hemisphere. Why, for that matter, is Haiti so much worse than the other Caribbean former-slave black nations like Jamaica? (Perhaps something to do with having different former colonial masters?)
Why are African-Americans so much worse off than, say, Asian-Americans? Yeah, their ancestors were slaves, but the Chinese who came to the American West in the 1800s were hardly better than that, and still face considerable racism (as in the recent case of Wen Ho Lee). Why does one group wallow forever in excuses, while the other works to better its lot?
These are questions that cannot be answered in public; even to ask them is politically incorrect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:32 PM February 28th, 2004 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Philalethes.
I know what you're saying.
In my younger days I was what one might call a "Flaming Liberal", I'm still kind of Liberal, But not nearly so much. I used to be a Male feminist, too. I was an Indian activist then too, but though I still am one I'm not as radical as i was.
I, like alot of minorities, also once beleived that my life would be just great if not for the "Mother f#&%ing White man". I thought the White man OWES me. But as I grew older I had what really shouldn't have been a shocking revealation, and that was the Whites who did what they did were all dead, after 100 years.
Alot of White folks living today don't even know what an Indian is, really. So how could they hate me if they don't even realize we Indians still EXSIST!?!
No I think alot of us as minorities use the excuse of past mis-deeds of whites to cover the fact that many of US are just as racist as any given white person might be.
Are there still racist whites? Sure, alot of them, I've experienced it first hand. But are there whites that AREN'T racist? sure, I've experienced THAT first hand too. For every white person who has called me "Timber Nigger" there are 50 who have held a door open for me, (I walk with a cane) struck up a freindly conversation in the supermarket check-out line or even helped me to get a snapping turtle out of a busy street. (True storie)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:47 PM February 28th, 2004 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Oops, I hit the submit button by mistake.
Any way back to what I was saying.
As far as Blacks are conserned they can be just as racist as any white person, too.
I've had Blacks make racial slurs to me , as well as whites. but does that make all Blacks racist? of course not. (Some Indians also make racial slurs, too to be fair)
The point is, there is not one "group" of people who haven't been "done wrong" by some other group of people. History is rife with that fact.
The question is, When do we all stop blameing each other for the past and start working together on the future. No one can un-do what their forebearers did, one can only learn from the mistakes of those who came before and not repeat those mistakes.
Prejiduce is a mistake. One that ALL people at one time or another make.
In the begining of this Nation It was Whites and Men who made that mistake. Now it is we Minorities and women who are now, too often makeing that SAME mistake.
As human beings, all, when will we learn?
Well, maybe some day...,
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A timber nigger?
I never heard that one before.
Probably a good thing. I can't even begin to imagine...
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:47 PM March 1st, 2004 EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, "timber nigger".
Those of us who are desended from 'Woodland tribes' are refered to as "timber niggers".
Those of us from 'plains tribes' are refered to as "prarie niggers".
I'm glad you never heared the term, it shows you probably weren't brought up in a racist enviroment.
I've heared it WAY too many times.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:11 PM March 4th, 2004 EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
My Dad just referred to 'Indians', and we knew what he meant. No slurs, though he did wonder how Indians could complain about the White Man stealing their land when they got it by forcibly taking it from other tribes who took it from still earlier tribes...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:38 PM February 28th, 2004 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
Even though this is goingto be unpopular of me to say, I'll say it anyways. I've got 'black' relatives and I also see that doing this is in my own self interest.
Black people were brought here against their wills into a foriegn continent where they were a minority who were owned as slaves (most other races came here slowly, and not as slaves to white people). This made them inferior to all whites, including poor whites, who were also treated badly.
Race use to mean the general area a person lived in, the geography, language, customs, social behaviors, and other cultural differences. Differences that we might call 'ethnic'.
In the past when Europeans started really colonizing the people and land of other nations they conquered such as in Asia and Africa, and North America there became a need to differentiate between the colonized and the colinizers, the slave and the slave trader. The colonized were considered heathens and pagans. Religion and conversion went along with the efforts of slavery and stealing anothers land. As people converted there became the need to separate those same people from Christain Europeans.
Their skin color was used, their genes. I think there are only 5 genes that make up the difference of any two races. In the 1500's Eurpoeans began to make something called 'scientific racism', which tried to construct a biological, instead of cultural definition of "race". In essence racists created racism. So instead of there being different Eurpoean ethnicity's, they lumped all of Europeans together into a single race called "white" and all others as "colored". This is what created "white supremacy".
Racism was made to justify privileges and domination over non whites. It explained to the 'white' person that because they were in a better economic position or social position it meant they were superior, not because they were justifying domination and exploitation. Poor whites have fooled themselves with this theory, because this would also have to mean that they were only a little superior over people of color, and very inferior to the rich and powerful.
This helped keep slavery together. Then when slavery was abolished there was segregation, and eventually Jim Crow Laws more specifically against black people, which was, again, meant to make poor whites feel superior over blacks. It gave them a little escape from the feelings of powerlessness, to calm their feelings of rebellion. It also caused much violence to people with black skin color.
The "white" race is defined by the color of black skin and all people of color being inferior. People with black skin color have been the target over and over again, after slavery then they were put in ghetto's and black men in prison. And those out of prison are given shity jobs.
Now, even though the laws claim equality they are still given the worst schools with no money, they are still discriminated against in employment. AA has not worked for them, it is a pacifier. The courts still put black men to death and behind bars without a blink. The drug laws were created on racist policies, and they are the ones who are the ones who get it applied to the most. Even though there is tons and tons of white collar drug crimes that deal in the same and even higher sells and purchases (Limbaugh). And on top of that there are still lynchings, and still people who are wanna be lynchers who call themselves the KKK.
And then when people with black skin color do bad in school, are unemployed, in prison, maybe not educated that well, white people say it's because they aren't trying hard enough or they think it proves they are superior in some way. Racism justify's this, because if it's biology there's nothing we can do about it, and it's just the natural way. This is similar to how rich people look at poorer people.
As for this politician saying what she said, oh well, politicians are idiots. They use race to further their agenda, that's how it goes. Only she's allowed to be more blunt.
I did not mean this to be a guilt trip.. It's just how things are and have been.
I think poorer whites, and poorer blacks and all colors should team up together to make their economic lives improve, even if they have some problems with each other. So I believe it is in the self interest of a very large number of whites to fight against racism.
I don't think I'll debate this. That's all I want to say.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:57 PM February 28th, 2004 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
Some people might be interested in this book. Although I'm not sure any would be though, its also controversial.
It's called,
"The Redneck Manifesto" by Jim Goad
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684 838648/qid=1078000893//ref=pd_ka_1/104-6016582-924 2339?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
I think it's worth taking a look at.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:06 PM February 28th, 2004 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
I heard an argument that "Whiteness" is more of a cultural thing, not exactly skin-color related. The closer a person comes to matching White culture, the more likey he or she is going to be accepted by White culture.
We can see this in the cultures that White people met and liked. For example, White scholars/anthropologists/whatever liked Incas and Aztecs a lot better than North American Plains Indians (the tribes that were nomadic). Apparently, this was because Incas and Aztecs built large cities and temples and White people liked that; they admired it. There were a few North American Indian tribes that built various structures and White people seemed to like them better than the ones that didn't.
For another case, let's look at the Chinese. They were hated and reviled for much of the 19th Century. But at some point anthropoligists/scholars learned of all the art and civilization they had built and White people respected that. So, (I think it was sometime in the 1930s) Chinese culture started to become popular (although I don't know how it compares to the level of acceptance of Chinese today).
You said that all of Europe was considered White, but I don't think that's entirely accurate. I think that England and France (plust a few other countries) were considered White, but although countries' "Whiteness" depended on various factors. I think one is religion. Protestants are Whiter than Catholics. I don't think that Irish were even considered fully White until a couple of decades into the 20th Century. Germans were referred to as Huns during World War I, but seemed Whiter afterwards.
Politics also seems to be a factor in Whiteness, so it can be hard to identify other contributing factors due to interference. For instance, were the Germans considered less White because we were at war with them? Or was it because of a long standing competition between Germany and England? (Germany was a rising industrial power, a century earlier it merely supplied mercenaries to other Europian countries.)
If you've ever read Bram Stoker's Dracula, I believe it covers a lot of these distinctions in Whiteness. The country that Dracula is in is an Eastern European country with strange cultural practices. The book, written by an Irishman, is supposed to expose the ethnocentrism and sexual hang-ups of the English/Victorians.
So, I don't think it's easy as just saying that "these people are white" and "these aren't". It seems a lot more complicated on who is considered more White than others. I think that people who show more cultural similarities with the White culture are going to be considered White.
***Here's a fun thought I had recently: If being White (or Black or Hispanic, etc) is more about culture than skin color, then KKK members aren't really White. Tolerance seems to be a big part of being White today and the KKK is one of the most intolerant groups around, so no one in that organization can really call themselves White.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:39 PM February 28th, 2004 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
"So, I don't think it's easy as just saying that "these people are white" and "these aren't". It seems a lot more complicated on who is considered more White than others."
I think you're right about 'white' culture, I think that's what people mean when they say they want to abolish "whiteness". But
If your skin is obviously light skinned you're going to get what comes with having light skin from European descent. In general you're still going to be treated better than non-whites, and it becomes politically adventageous thing to become more 'white'.
"Tolerance seems to be a big part of being White today"
A lot of minorities would disagree. I live in a "PC" part of the country that talks of "diversity" and "tolerance" but that's just on the surface. A lot of African American people say that they like the south better. They have a better idea on where they stand with a white person. The racism in my part of the country comes with a smile on your face, but with the same results.
This is what I understand, at least.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:26 AM February 29th, 2004 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
You won't have to worry about whites or "whiteness" as you call it for much longer.
Whites are quickly becoming a minority in America,
and given all the hostility and scapegoating directed at whites I don't think there will be much tolerance or understanding showed towards white people once other "races" gain a majority of political power and control.
And since whites lack the unity wich other ethnic
groups have they won't be able to defend themselves if need be. If whites try to unite themselves they are denounced as racists and supremacists.
So depending of how much hatred there is for whites there won't be any of them left alive in America in about 100 years.
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:01 PM February 29th, 2004 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe you are in too much fear. I agree there is scapegoating of poor whites by the wealthy "lefty's". They say things "redneck', poor white trash', 'trailer trash', and that kind of thing. It's to take away their white guilt and put 'all' white guilt on poorer whites. The right does similar things, as well.
But there is, and have been much scapegoating of people of color to make whites fear them, and reinforce racism.
If you are worried about a race war happening, it's root cause will be from racism. So the most rational way to stop a race war from happening, is to stop racism. A way to gain understanding with people of color is to give them understanding while white people do have political power.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:15 PM February 29th, 2004 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
I personally am in no fear since I'm colored myself. But I can understand why you thought I was white, I have been called an oreo more than once so it seems to come across in my writing also.
As I see it the problem is that the current explanation for racism is "whites are evil", and the solution is that whites must change or be changed, but in reality racism cuts both ways.
By heaping guilt upon people based on the color of their skin you only feed fears they might have.
This applies equally to everyone no matter what skin tone they have.
Whites being told that they are guilty for being white come to feel either anger or fear, in most cases I presume a mix of the two. Colored people being told that they are lazy good for nothings feel the same way. Point is, all humans react to stressfull situations in basically two ways, they either fight or they flee, anger or fear.
If whites react with anger they are labeld racists, so most of them choose to flee. This in turn separates the races even more and there will never come any understanding or healing from this.
The ones that are interested in keeping us separate and fearfull of each other are those that can profit from it, mostly politicans and their ilk.
What it all boils down to for me is that I can't understand how two wrongs will make one right.
Concerning the race war issue, I don't think it will be a war, it will probably be more of an
ethnic cleansing. Hopefully things won't go so far and we will all try to understand and see each other as individuals instead of groups.
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:57 PM February 29th, 2004 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
"As I see it the problem is that the current explanation for racism is "whites are evil", and the solution is that whites must change or be changed, but in reality racism cuts both ways."
I have never said whites are evil. I first explained why it is in white peoples own self interest to stop racism. I gave a link to a book that was anti-pc and against 'white guilt'. But there will always be some amount of guilt for whites. And I alluded to how it is the enviroment that creates racist people, not that anyone is inherently bad.
There is no way to talk about this without making things a little uncomfortable.
Racism does not just go both ways equally. People of color, especially black people were meant to feel inferior to whites and are put lower on down the social/economic ladder. racism is used to justify advantage over other races. It is not simply prejudice. In this country we have 'white supremacy', I'm saying this supremacy must change for their to ever be anything close to racial unity.
I probably assumed you were white because of this comment---"And since whites lack the unity wich other ethnic
groups have they won't be able to defend themselves if need be. If whites try to unite themselves they are denounced as racists and supremacists."
Can't say I've heard many minorities say whites lack unity, or are concerned that whites are denounced as racists when they try to racially unite themselves.
The reason it is considered okay that minorities unite is so they can fight 'against' racism. They have been made into a group. Whereas since racism against whites is not institutionalized, they have no need to fight against it. The organizations that whites make to create 'racial unity' are orgs. like the skin heads and the KKK.
p.george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:58 PM February 29th, 2004 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
"The ones that are interested in keeping us separate and fearfull of each other are those that can profit from it, mostly politicans and their ilk. "
I agree.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:52 PM March 1st, 2004 EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
During the Los Angeles Riots in the early 90's
When many Black people attacked "Whites" (Like Reginald Deny) They mistakenly attacked light-skinned Hispanics, Asians, light-skinned Indians (like me), And at least one LIGHT-SKINNED BLACK person, (that I know of.) All because they deemed these people as "White".
A "Race war" will be a drag for those of us who don't fit into the neat little "skin-color" niche.
Whites will attack us for being "Colored" and Blacks will attack us for being "White".
That already happens, now!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
