[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Gregus wrote:
I have no idea how to respond and cannot formulate and defend a valid argument on the politics forum.
I agree.[/quote]
I know.
WHAT IS RACISM? by Thomas Jackson
There is surely no nation in the world that holds â??racismâ?? in greater horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as part of the inevitable texture of American life. â??Racismâ?? is never shrugged off. For example, when a white Georgetown Law School student reported earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as white students, it set off a booming, national controversy about â??racism.â?? If the student had merely murdered someone he would have attracted far less attention and criticism.
Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach against it, America is said to be racked with it, but just what is racism?
Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the word. They usually define it as the belief that oneâ??s own ethnic stock is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are rooted in race. When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal more than this. Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a clue to understanding what Americans do mean. A peculiarly American meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are equal.
Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and anyone who questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil.
The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If blacks, for example, are equal to whites in every way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is white racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state.
All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic. Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on white wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences. Thus, even if todayâ??s whites can find in their hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterdayâ??s whites must have oppressed them. If whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must oppress them Unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be identified, then societal institutions must be racist. Or, since blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be millions of white people we do not know about, who are working day and night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion, an indictment of white people.
The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to believe that the only explanation for non-white failure is white racism, every time a non-white is poor, commits a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, white society stands accused of yet another act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-whites is standing proof that white society is riddled with hatred and bigotry.
For precisely so long as non-whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the same level as whites, whites will be, by definition, thwarting and oppressing them.
This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be committed almost exclusively by white people. Indeed, a black congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black mayor of Detroit, have argued that only white people can be racist. Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she explained that all whites are racist and that only whites can be racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?
Although some blacks and liberal whites concede that non-whites can, perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-whites have been forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of white oppression. What appears to be non-white racism is so understandable and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not an act is called racism depends on the race of the racist.
What would surely be called racism when done by whites is thought to be normal when done by anyone else. The reverse is also true.
Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost tedious to list them: When a white man kills a black man and uses the word â??niggerâ?? while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and the nation beats its collective breast; when members of the black Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of random whites, the media are silent (see AR of March, 1991). College campuses forbid pejorative statements about non-whites as â??racist,â?? but ignore scurrilous attacks on whites.
At election time, if 60 percent of the white voters vote for a white candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black opponent, it is white who are accused of racial bias. There are 107 â??historically blackâ?? colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be preserved in the name of diversity, but all historically white colleges must be forcibly integrated in the name ofâ?¦ the same thing. To resist would be racist.
â??Black prideâ?? is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything that could be construed as an expression of white pride is a form of hatred. It is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect school instruction and driverâ??s tests in their own languages, whereas for native Americans to ask them to learn English is racist.
Blatant anti-white prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is now the law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if practiced in favor of whites, would be attacked as despicable favoritism.
All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club or association expressly for whites is by definition racist. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) campaigns openly for black advantage but is a respected â??civil rightsâ?? organization. The National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races, but is said to be viciously racist.
At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action have set up student unions for whites, analogous to those for blacks, Hispanics, etc, and have been roundly condemned as racists. Recently, when the white students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found themselves to be a minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club like the ones that non- whites have. They were turned down in horror. Indeed, in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a white enclave but whose members simply happen all to be white is branded as racist.
Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the asymmetric quality of American racism is â??celebration of diversity.â?? It has begun to dawn on a few people that â??diversityâ?? is always achieved at the expense of whites (and sometimes men), and never the other way around. No one proposes that Howard University be made more diverse by admitting whites, Hispanics, or Asians. No one ever suggests that National Hispanic University in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the diversity of having non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the Black Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from a lack of diversity. Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to celebrate homogeneity. And yet any all-white group - a company, a town, a school, a club, a neighborhood - is thought to suffer from a crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied as quickly as possible. Only when whites have been reduced to a minority has â??diversityâ?? been achieved.
Let us put it bluntly: To â??celebrateâ?? or â??embraceâ?? diversity, as we are so often asked to do, is no different from deploring an excess of whites. In fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess of whites. Our current immigration policies are structured so that approximately 90 percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are non-white. The several million illegal immigrants that enter the country every year are virtually all non-white. It would be racist not to be grateful for this laudable contribution to â??diversity.â?? It is, of course, only white nations that are called upon to practice this kind of â??diversity.â?? It is almost criminal to imagine a nation of any other race countenancing blatant dispossession of this kind.
What if the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated citizens across the border into Mexico? Could anyone be fooled into thinking that Mexico was being â??culturally enriched?â?? What if the state of Chihuahua were losing its majority population to poor whites who demanded that schools be taught in English, who insisted on celebrating the Fourth of July, who demanded the right to vote even if they werenâ??t citizens, who clamored for â??affirmative actionâ?? in jobs and schooling?
Would Mexico - or any other non-white nation - tolerate this kind of cultural and demographic depredation? Of course not. Yet white Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians entering their country as a priceless cultural gift. They are supposed to â??celebrateâ?? their own loss of influence, their own dwindling numbers, their own dispossession, for to do otherwise would be hopelessly racist.
There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non- whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of â??hatingâ?? another group. Blacks can join â??civil rightsâ?? groups and Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots and hate mongers. They can agitate openly for racial preferences that can come only at the expense of whites. They can demand preferential treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are â??anti-white.â??
Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject racial policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that they prefer the company of their own kind, that they wish to be left alone to enjoy the fruits of their European heritage, they are irredeemably wicked and hateful.
Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their own kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct from those of the whole, and to work openly for group advantage. None of this is thought to be racist. At the same time, whites must also champion the racial interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice their own future on the altar of â??diversityâ?? and cooperate in their own dispossession. They are to encourage, even to subsidize, the displacement of a European people and culture by alien peoples and cultures. To put it in the simplest possible terms, white people are cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit racial and cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism.
Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United States is perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to love oneâ??s people and to hope that it should flourish. Filipinos and El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished to discover that simply by setting foot in the United States they are entitled to affirmative action preferences over native-born whites, but can they be blamed for accepting them? Is it surprising that they should want their languages, their cultures, their brothers and sisters to take possession and put their mark indelibly on the land? If the once-great people of a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and is prepared to hand over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for it, why should Mexicans and Cambodians complain?
No, it is the white enterprise in the United States that is unnatural, unhealthy, and without historical precedent.
Whites have let themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to dispossession, much less to work for their own interests. Never in the history of the world has a dominant people thrown open the gates to strangers, and poured out its wealth to aliens. Never before has a people been fooled into thinking that there was virtue or nobility in surrendering its heritage, and giving away to others its place in history. Of all the races in America, only whites have been tricked into thinking that a preference for oneâ??s own kind is racism. Only whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow â??hatredâ?? of others.
All healthy people prefer the company of their own kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred. All men love their families more than their neighbors, but this does not mean that they hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial family need bear no ill will towards non-whites. They only wish to be left alone to participate in the unfolding of their racial and cultural destinies.
What whites in America are being asked to do is therefore utterly unnatural. They are being asked to devote themselves to the interests of other races and to ignore the interests of their own. This is like asking a man to forsake his own children and love the children of his neighbors, since to do otherwise would be â??racist.â??
What then, is â??racism?â?? It is considerably more than any dictionary is likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to official policies of racial preference for non-whites. It is any preference by whites for their own people and culture. It is any resistance by whites to the idea of becoming a minority people. It is any unwillingness to be pushed aside. It is, in short, any of the normal aspirations of people-hood that have defined nations since the beginning of history - but only so long as the aspirations are those of whites.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
My quick thought: You’re a racist if you exhibit harmful thoughts or actions against a person of another race, without treating them based on that individuals character. You’re also a racist if you don’t take the time to understand the cultures of the people you interact with. As you grow to understand the cultures of the world and the people that make them up, you’ll find yourself a more complete and understanding individual.
Not many people fulfill the first qualification, but too many people make up the second. Besides, i still see black and white tables in the caf, racism is still a major issue for blacks and whites alike.
Just because a table is all black or all white does not mean it’s because of racism. WTF? Why can;t people of the same color, black or white, gather together and enjoy that which brings them together with something in common.
Of course they can, don’t be ridiculous. But when someone NEVER goes outside of their comfortable boundaries, in this case a group table, their is obviously an underlying issue.
When I was invited to the table by a black/hispanic friend, the main man of the table ignored me and said to him “dude, why’d you bring his lame ass over here” or something like that. He judged me before I even spoke, and I could tell by the looks and stares at me that I was unwanted. I became friends with all of them later, after the black basketball players started a fight with the football team and I got involved. I think they found a way to respect me for my strength and unique personality that separated me from my ethnicity.
Why should that signify an underlying issue though? I don’t go places I’m not comfy in, regardless of what kind of uncomfortable population is at that place–could be hell’s angels, gangbangers, jocks, whatever. Don’t care.
By your logic I would have an “underlying issue” to address because I would never want to be at the table with a bunch of black guys in saggy jersey clothing with flat billed hats and heavy chains talking street slang. Well, I’d never want to be at a table with white people dressed in the same clothes and talking the same way either. I don’t have anything in common with them. I don’t want to talk about the things they want to talk about, I think speaking in absurdly improper english is stupid, and I think the sort of posturing and machismo that typically (necessary disclaimer–not always) goes with that crowd a huge pet peeve.
It has nothing to do with the color of skin, it has to do with culture, interests, and intelligence. You put a table of minority people together talking about books, or history, or science, and I’ll sit right down with them and go to town. But that never (necessary disclaimer: it does sometimes) happens does it? I have a few black guys and girls that come into my bar that I love to talk to–they are intelligent and they like to talk about things I like to talk about.
I’m not going to sit down at a table full of people I’m uncomfortable with. But that doesn’t mean I have some sort of “race superiority” complex. I just find stupid, posturing idiots, well…boring idiots.
[/quote]
Your misunderstanding my statements, and essentially we agree. If you know that you don’t share a lot of common ground with a thug, a gang member, or a tough guy then congratulations you are like 80% of white America.
My point is that I made an effort to understand the story of another race, and I found them entertaining, I understood where they came from racially and culturally, and I understood their disposition towards “whitey”. They are not all like me, but I made an effort to understand why someone would become a drug dealer, a gang member, or contemplate murder. Am I weak or a fool for doing this?
And you’re right, this issue has nothing to do with skin. In the immortal words of Dr. King, “I have a dream that one day men will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character”. I never judge anything until I make my best effort to understand it. I knew that day I sat at the table that there were barriers reaching beyond language and clothing that stemmed from a lack of understanding.
[quote]Ren wrote:
WHAT IS RACISM? by Thomas Jackson
There is surely no nation in the world that holds â??racismâ?? in greater horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as part of the inevitable texture of American life. â??Racismâ?? is never shrugged off. For example, when a white Georgetown Law School student reported earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as white students, it set off a booming, national controversy about â??racism.â?? If the student had merely murdered someone he would have attracted far less attention and criticism.
Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach against it, America is said to be racked with it, but just what is racism?
Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the word. They usually define it as the belief that oneâ??s own ethnic stock is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are rooted in race. When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal more than this. Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a clue to understanding what Americans do mean. A peculiarly American meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are equal.
Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and anyone who questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil.
The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If blacks, for example, are equal to whites in every way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is white racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state.
All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic. Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on white wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences. Thus, even if todayâ??s whites can find in their hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterdayâ??s whites must have oppressed them. If whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must oppress them Unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be identified, then societal institutions must be racist. Or, since blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be millions of white people we do not know about, who are working day and night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion, an indictment of white people.
The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to believe that the only explanation for non-white failure is white racism, every time a non-white is poor, commits a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, white society stands accused of yet another act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-whites is standing proof that white society is riddled with hatred and bigotry.
For precisely so long as non-whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the same level as whites, whites will be, by definition, thwarting and oppressing them.
This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be committed almost exclusively by white people. Indeed, a black congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black mayor of Detroit, have argued that only white people can be racist. Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she explained that all whites are racist and that only whites can be racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?
Although some blacks and liberal whites concede that non-whites can, perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-whites have been forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of white oppression. What appears to be non-white racism is so understandable and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not an act is called racism depends on the race of the racist.
What would surely be called racism when done by whites is thought to be normal when done by anyone else. The reverse is also true.
Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost tedious to list them: When a white man kills a black man and uses the word â??niggerâ?? while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and the nation beats its collective breast; when members of the black Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of random whites, the media are silent (see AR of March, 1991). College campuses forbid pejorative statements about non-whites as â??racist,â?? but ignore scurrilous attacks on whites.
At election time, if 60 percent of the white voters vote for a white candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black opponent, it is white who are accused of racial bias. There are 107 â??historically blackâ?? colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be preserved in the name of diversity, but all historically white colleges must be forcibly integrated in the name ofâ?¦ the same thing. To resist would be racist.
â??Black prideâ?? is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything that could be construed as an expression of white pride is a form of hatred. It is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect school instruction and driverâ??s tests in their own languages, whereas for native Americans to ask them to learn English is racist.
Blatant anti-white prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is now the law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if practiced in favor of whites, would be attacked as despicable favoritism.
All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club or association expressly for whites is by definition racist. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) campaigns openly for black advantage but is a respected â??civil rightsâ?? organization. The National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races, but is said to be viciously racist.
At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action have set up student unions for whites, analogous to those for blacks, Hispanics, etc, and have been roundly condemned as racists. Recently, when the white students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found themselves to be a minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club like the ones that non- whites have. They were turned down in horror. Indeed, in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a white enclave but whose members simply happen all to be white is branded as racist.
Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the asymmetric quality of American racism is â??celebration of diversity.â?? It has begun to dawn on a few people that â??diversityâ?? is always achieved at the expense of whites (and sometimes men), and never the other way around. No one proposes that Howard University be made more diverse by admitting whites, Hispanics, or Asians. No one ever suggests that National Hispanic University in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the diversity of having non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the Black Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from a lack of diversity. Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to celebrate homogeneity. And yet any all-white group - a company, a town, a school, a club, a neighborhood - is thought to suffer from a crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied as quickly as possible. Only when whites have been reduced to a minority has â??diversityâ?? been achieved.
Let us put it bluntly: To â??celebrateâ?? or â??embraceâ?? diversity, as we are so often asked to do, is no different from deploring an excess of whites. In fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess of whites. Our current immigration policies are structured so that approximately 90 percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are non-white. The several million illegal immigrants that enter the country every year are virtually all non-white. It would be racist not to be grateful for this laudable contribution to â??diversity.â?? It is, of course, only white nations that are called upon to practice this kind of â??diversity.â?? It is almost criminal to imagine a nation of any other race countenancing blatant dispossession of this kind.
What if the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated citizens across the border into Mexico? Could anyone be fooled into thinking that Mexico was being â??culturally enriched?â?? What if the state of Chihuahua were losing its majority population to poor whites who demanded that schools be taught in English, who insisted on celebrating the Fourth of July, who demanded the right to vote even if they werenâ??t citizens, who clamored for â??affirmative actionâ?? in jobs and schooling?
Would Mexico - or any other non-white nation - tolerate this kind of cultural and demographic depredation? Of course not. Yet white Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians entering their country as a priceless cultural gift. They are supposed to â??celebrateâ?? their own loss of influence, their own dwindling numbers, their own dispossession, for to do otherwise would be hopelessly racist.
There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non- whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of â??hatingâ?? another group. Blacks can join â??civil rightsâ?? groups and Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots and hate mongers. They can agitate openly for racial preferences that can come only at the expense of whites. They can demand preferential treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are â??anti-white.â??
Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject racial policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that they prefer the company of their own kind, that they wish to be left alone to enjoy the fruits of their European heritage, they are irredeemably wicked and hateful.
Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their own kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct from those of the whole, and to work openly for group advantage. None of this is thought to be racist. At the same time, whites must also champion the racial interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice their own future on the altar of â??diversityâ?? and cooperate in their own dispossession. They are to encourage, even to subsidize, the displacement of a European people and culture by alien peoples and cultures. To put it in the simplest possible terms, white people are cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit racial and cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism.
Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United States is perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to love oneâ??s people and to hope that it should flourish. Filipinos and El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished to discover that simply by setting foot in the United States they are entitled to affirmative action preferences over native-born whites, but can they be blamed for accepting them? Is it surprising that they should want their languages, their cultures, their brothers and sisters to take possession and put their mark indelibly on the land? If the once-great people of a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and is prepared to hand over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for it, why should Mexicans and Cambodians complain?
No, it is the white enterprise in the United States that is unnatural, unhealthy, and without historical precedent.
Whites have let themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to dispossession, much less to work for their own interests. Never in the history of the world has a dominant people thrown open the gates to strangers, and poured out its wealth to aliens. Never before has a people been fooled into thinking that there was virtue or nobility in surrendering its heritage, and giving away to others its place in history. Of all the races in America, only whites have been tricked into thinking that a preference for oneâ??s own kind is racism. Only whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow â??hatredâ?? of others.
All healthy people prefer the company of their own kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred. All men love their families more than their neighbors, but this does not mean that they hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial family need bear no ill will towards non-whites. They only wish to be left alone to participate in the unfolding of their racial and cultural destinies.
What whites in America are being asked to do is therefore utterly unnatural. They are being asked to devote themselves to the interests of other races and to ignore the interests of their own. This is like asking a man to forsake his own children and love the children of his neighbors, since to do otherwise would be â??racist.â??
What then, is â??racism?â?? It is considerably more than any dictionary is likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to official policies of racial preference for non-whites. It is any preference by whites for their own people and culture. It is any resistance by whites to the idea of becoming a minority people. It is any unwillingness to be pushed aside. It is, in short, any of the normal aspirations of people-hood that have defined nations since the beginning of history - but only so long as the aspirations are those of whites.[/quote]
Ha Exactly. I’ve known this for years and it always pissed me off. Not may know this, but in the years leading upto WW2 the Jewish controlled media in Germany was pulling the same deal on German people. They were being displaced and gradually made to feel like minorities in their country. This combined with other economic factors led to a person popping up named Hitler. He only said what every German was thinking, “the Jews are taking over” and they were. The rest is history.
America has to be careful in this as people can only be pushed so far before they are internally furious. Then all you need is a leader to pop up and you have alot of unrest on your hands.
I also wonder if the prohibition effect is here. For all intents and purposes racism is outlawed. Can that cause a greater buildup of hidden racism? Again, the prohibition effect?
I find it amusing that white males in my family openly profess everything your article writes about. I mean that in the sense that they are brainwashed so very very well by their universities.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
Ren wrote:
WHAT IS RACISM? by Thomas Jackson
There is surely no nation in the world that holds �¢??racism�¢?? in greater horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as part of the inevitable texture of American life. �¢??Racism�¢?? is never shrugged off. For example, when a white Georgetown Law School student reported earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as white students, it set off a booming, national controversy about �¢??racism.�¢?? If the student had merely murdered someone he would have attracted far less attention and criticism.
Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach against it, America is said to be racked with it, but just what is racism?
Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the word. They usually define it as the belief that one�¢??s own ethnic stock is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are rooted in race. When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal more than this. Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a clue to understanding what Americans do mean. A peculiarly American meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are equal.
Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and anyone who questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil.
The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If blacks, for example, are equal to whites in every way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is white racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state.
All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic. Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on white wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences. Thus, even if today�¢??s whites can find in their hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday�¢??s whites must have oppressed them. If whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must oppress them Unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be identified, then societal institutions must be racist. Or, since blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be millions of white people we do not know about, who are working day and night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion, an indictment of white people.
The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to believe that the only explanation for non-white failure is white racism, every time a non-white is poor, commits a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, white society stands accused of yet another act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-whites is standing proof that white society is riddled with hatred and bigotry.
For precisely so long as non-whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the same level as whites, whites will be, by definition, thwarting and oppressing them.
This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be committed almost exclusively by white people. Indeed, a black congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black mayor of Detroit, have argued that only white people can be racist. Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she explained that all whites are racist and that only whites can be racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?
Although some blacks and liberal whites concede that non-whites can, perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-whites have been forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of white oppression. What appears to be non-white racism is so understandable and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not an act is called racism depends on the race of the racist.
What would surely be called racism when done by whites is thought to be normal when done by anyone else. The reverse is also true.
Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost tedious to list them: When a white man kills a black man and uses the word �¢??nigger�¢?? while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and the nation beats its collective breast; when members of the black Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of random whites, the media are silent (see AR of March, 1991). College campuses forbid pejorative statements about non-whites as �¢??racist,�¢?? but ignore scurrilous attacks on whites.
At election time, if 60 percent of the white voters vote for a white candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black opponent, it is white who are accused of racial bias. There are 107 �¢??historically black�¢?? colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be preserved in the name of diversity, but all historically white colleges must be forcibly integrated in the name of�¢?�¦ the same thing. To resist would be racist.
�¢??Black pride�¢?? is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything that could be construed as an expression of white pride is a form of hatred. It is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect school instruction and driver�¢??s tests in their own languages, whereas for native Americans to ask them to learn English is racist.
Blatant anti-white prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is now the law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if practiced in favor of whites, would be attacked as despicable favoritism.
All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club or association expressly for whites is by definition racist. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) campaigns openly for black advantage but is a respected �¢??civil rights�¢?? organization. The National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races, but is said to be viciously racist.
At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action have set up student unions for whites, analogous to those for blacks, Hispanics, etc, and have been roundly condemned as racists. Recently, when the white students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found themselves to be a minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club like the ones that non- whites have. They were turned down in horror. Indeed, in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a white enclave but whose members simply happen all to be white is branded as racist.
Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the asymmetric quality of American racism is �¢??celebration of diversity.�¢?? It has begun to dawn on a few people that �¢??diversity�¢?? is always achieved at the expense of whites (and sometimes men), and never the other way around. No one proposes that Howard University be made more diverse by admitting whites, Hispanics, or Asians. No one ever suggests that National Hispanic University in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the diversity of having non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the Black Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from a lack of diversity. Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to celebrate homogeneity. And yet any all-white group - a company, a town, a school, a club, a neighborhood - is thought to suffer from a crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied as quickly as possible. Only when whites have been reduced to a minority has �¢??diversity�¢?? been achieved.
Let us put it bluntly: To �¢??celebrate�¢?? or �¢??embrace�¢?? diversity, as we are so often asked to do, is no different from deploring an excess of whites. In fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess of whites. Our current immigration policies are structured so that approximately 90 percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are non-white. The several million illegal immigrants that enter the country every year are virtually all non-white. It would be racist not to be grateful for this laudable contribution to �¢??diversity.�¢?? It is, of course, only white nations that are called upon to practice this kind of �¢??diversity.�¢?? It is almost criminal to imagine a nation of any other race countenancing blatant dispossession of this kind.
What if the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated citizens across the border into Mexico? Could anyone be fooled into thinking that Mexico was being �¢??culturally enriched?�¢?? What if the state of Chihuahua were losing its majority population to poor whites who demanded that schools be taught in English, who insisted on celebrating the Fourth of July, who demanded the right to vote even if they weren�¢??t citizens, who clamored for �¢??affirmative action�¢?? in jobs and schooling?
Would Mexico - or any other non-white nation - tolerate this kind of cultural and demographic depredation? Of course not. Yet white Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians entering their country as a priceless cultural gift. They are supposed to �¢??celebrate�¢?? their own loss of influence, their own dwindling numbers, their own dispossession, for to do otherwise would be hopelessly racist.
There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non- whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of �¢??hating�¢?? another group. Blacks can join �¢??civil rights�¢?? groups and Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots and hate mongers. They can agitate openly for racial preferences that can come only at the expense of whites. They can demand preferential treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are �¢??anti-white.�¢??
Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject racial policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that they prefer the company of their own kind, that they wish to be left alone to enjoy the fruits of their European heritage, they are irredeemably wicked and hateful.
Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their own kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct from those of the whole, and to work openly for group advantage. None of this is thought to be racist. At the same time, whites must also champion the racial interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice their own future on the altar of �¢??diversity�¢?? and cooperate in their own dispossession. They are to encourage, even to subsidize, the displacement of a European people and culture by alien peoples and cultures. To put it in the simplest possible terms, white people are cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit racial and cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism.
Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United States is perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to love one�¢??s people and to hope that it should flourish. Filipinos and El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished to discover that simply by setting foot in the United States they are entitled to affirmative action preferences over native-born whites, but can they be blamed for accepting them? Is it surprising that they should want their languages, their cultures, their brothers and sisters to take possession and put their mark indelibly on the land? If the once-great people of a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and is prepared to hand over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for it, why should Mexicans and Cambodians complain?
No, it is the white enterprise in the United States that is unnatural, unhealthy, and without historical precedent.
Whites have let themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to dispossession, much less to work for their own interests. Never in the history of the world has a dominant people thrown open the gates to strangers, and poured out its wealth to aliens. Never before has a people been fooled into thinking that there was virtue or nobility in surrendering its heritage, and giving away to others its place in history. Of all the races in America, only whites have been tricked into thinking that a preference for one�¢??s own kind is racism. Only whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow �¢??hatred�¢?? of others.
All healthy people prefer the company of their own kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred. All men love their families more than their neighbors, but this does not mean that they hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial family need bear no ill will towards non-whites. They only wish to be left alone to participate in the unfolding of their racial and cultural destinies.
What whites in America are being asked to do is therefore utterly unnatural. They are being asked to devote themselves to the interests of other races and to ignore the interests of their own. This is like asking a man to forsake his own children and love the children of his neighbors, since to do otherwise would be �¢??racist.�¢??
What then, is �¢??racism?�¢?? It is considerably more than any dictionary is likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to official policies of racial preference for non-whites. It is any preference by whites for their own people and culture. It is any resistance by whites to the idea of becoming a minority people. It is any unwillingness to be pushed aside. It is, in short, any of the normal aspirations of people-hood that have defined nations since the beginning of history - but only so long as the aspirations are those of whites.
Ha Exactly. I’ve known this for years and it always pissed me off. Not may know this, but in the years leading upto WW2 the Jewish controlled media in Germany was pulling the same deal on German people. They were being displaced and gradually made to feel like minorities in their country. This combined with other economic factors led to a person popping up named Hitler. He only said what every German was thinking, “the Jews are taking over” and they were. The rest is history.
America has to be careful in this as people can only be pushed so far before they are internally furious. Then all you need is a leader to pop up and you have alot of unrest on your hands.
I also wonder if the prohibition effect is here. For all intents and purposes racism is outlawed. Can that cause a greater buildup of hidden racism? Again, the prohibition effect?
I find it amusing that white males in my family openly profess everything your article writes about. I mean that in the sense that they are brainwashed so very very well by their universities.
[/quote]
Dudes…STOP QUOTING PAGES AND PAGES OF CRAP with a 2 sentence response…it’s very laborious on a PDA…OK?
sorry.
IMO it’s kind of hard to not be somewhat racist when you have lived in the south most of your life and have to deal with the “gangstas”.
Especially having worked as club security for a year now, I can say that 8/10 the person starting a fight or some other bull shit is a black male in his early to mid 20’s.
I see that baggy ass clothing and those chains, I’m profiling, damn straight I am.
I mean just look at the crime rates of white vs black males, it’s not even close. They do a good enough job of “repressing” themselves, I don’t have to do a damn thing.
I also like plenty of black guys, the ones I talk to are pretty cool. But there are many many more that I just can’t help but shake my head at.
[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
IMO it’s kind of hard to not be somewhat racist when you have lived in the south most of your life and have to deal with the “gangstas”.
Especially having worked as club security for a year now, I can say that 8/10 the person starting a fight or some other bull shit is a black male in his early to mid 20’s.
I see that baggy ass clothing and those chains, I’m profiling, damn straight I am.
I mean just look at the crime rates of white vs black males, it’s not even close. They do a good enough job of “repressing” themselves, I don’t have to do a damn thing.
I also like plenty of black guys, the ones I talk to are pretty cool. But there are many many more that I just can’t help but shake my head at.
[/quote]
I think the term you’re looking for is “postjudiced,” meaning having interacted with a lot of group X over a long period of time, you’ve come to expect behavior Y from that group. It’s a normal mode of human operation. We notice patterns and act accordingly - at least the people capable of noticing patterns do.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
waylanderxx wrote:
IMO it’s kind of hard to not be somewhat racist when you have lived in the south most of your life and have to deal with the “gangstas”.
Especially having worked as club security for a year now, I can say that 8/10 the person starting a fight or some other bull shit is a black male in his early to mid 20’s.
I see that baggy ass clothing and those chains, I’m profiling, damn straight I am.
I mean just look at the crime rates of white vs black males, it’s not even close. They do a good enough job of “repressing” themselves, I don’t have to do a damn thing.
I also like plenty of black guys, the ones I talk to are pretty cool. But there are many many more that I just can’t help but shake my head at.
I think the term you’re looking for is “postjudiced,” meaning having interacted with a lot of group X over a long period of time, you’ve come to expect behavior Y from that group. It’s a normal mode of human operation. We notice patterns and act accordingly - at least the people capable of noticing patterns do.
[/quote]
fair enough, thanks.
If I can be racist and a black man cannot, am I somehow superior to a black man?
…ducks…
[quote]orion wrote:
If I can be racist and a black man cannot, am I somehow superior to a black man?
…ducks…
[/quote]
No, he is because he can NOT be a Racist.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
orion wrote:
If I can be racist and a black man cannot, am I somehow superior to a black man?
…ducks…
No, he is because he can NOT be a Racist.[/quote]
Oh no, because I can also NOT be a racist.
But I also can.
So there, I have more options.
But let us say that a black man is not a racist and I am also not a racist.
For him that is no big deal, because he cannot be.
For me, melatonaly challenged that I am, that would be a big moral achievement because I am a racist by default. White and Austrian? Sometimes the urge to goosestep is overwhelming.
By overcoming my heritage I can reach moral heights that are denied to a black man.
[quote]orion wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
orion wrote:
If I can be racist and a black man cannot, am I somehow superior to a black man?
…ducks…
No, he is because he can NOT be a Racist.
Oh no, because I can also NOT be a racist.
But I also can.
So there, I have more options.
But let us say that a black man is not a racist and I am also not a racist.
For him that is no big deal, because he cannot be.
For me, melatonaly challenged that I am, that would be a big moral achievement because I am a racist by default. White and Austrian? Sometimes the urge to goosestep is overwhelming.
By overcoming my heritage I can reach moral heights that are denied to a black man.
[/quote]
Deep…What strain are you smoking today?
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
orion wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
orion wrote:
If I can be racist and a black man cannot, am I somehow superior to a black man?
…ducks…
No, he is because he can NOT be a Racist.
Oh no, because I can also NOT be a racist.
But I also can.
So there, I have more options.
But let us say that a black man is not a racist and I am also not a racist.
For him that is no big deal, because he cannot be.
For me, melatonaly challenged that I am, that would be a big moral achievement because I am a racist by default. White and Austrian? Sometimes the urge to goosestep is overwhelming.
By overcoming my heritage I can reach moral heights that are denied to a black man.
Deep…What strain are you smoking today?
[/quote]
Chronic.
What gave it away?
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Gregus wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
While I don’t agree with that, white privilege is real. As society progresses, it begins losing its power, but my generation and the ones before it certainly benefited from it.
I’m not saying that there’s anything that can be done to fix it, but to deny that it exists is foolhardy.
Noone benefited from nothing. For you to say that shows your political brainwashing. You should lash yourself 20 times to atone for the sins of your ancestors, then you can rest but still be a racist by the virtue of your skin.
It is not a sin to say that I benefited from something that a black man my age did not; it’s simply the truth.
A lot of white people’s grandparents went to college back in the 40’s. A lot of black folks back then weren’t even close to having that opportunity. Until the late 50’s, schools were segregated, and that absolutely set blacks back. There was nothing that guaranteed them the right to vote until 1964.
To say that these things didn’t have an affect on the present day is proving that you are, as usual, a babbling idiot when it comes to politics and history.
I didn’t benefit from anyone. My parents worked their fingers to the bone, wore salvation army clothing and bought used tires to keep junk cars running. EVERYONE has and has had it rough. We can thank the previous generations work that we can build on. But no matter what our family always strived for better and worked toward that goal through ANY adversity.
So you come from West Virginia. Congratulations.
But really, NOT everyone has had it rough. SOME people can thank previous generations- other people’s “previous generations” were lynched when they tried to vote and were shot for looking at white women wrong. How, exactly, is that similar to your upbringing, or to your problems?
Since its inception, this country has made a concerted effort to keep blacks in the lower class, whether it would like to admit it or not. That is, in the last 50 years, beginning to dissipate… but it takes longer than that for three hundred years of oppression to heal.
It’s that kind of mindset that builds futures. A mindset does not come from bitching about racism. Minorities which buy into racism are falling for the trap set for them.
Completely wrong. The mindset, spoken from a white man, about minorities needing to stop bitching about racism even though he has no idea what it’s like to be on the other side of the fence, is what puts this country back into the 1950s.
[/quote]
irish, i see what you are saying, but you dont realize the bigger point i think he was trying to make. many people of all colors(in this country, mostly white i admit) have an advantage out of the starting gate related to the socioeconomic class of their families. as a professional, i went to college and not work with mostly people who’s parents were middle-upper middle class, they had the benefit of growing up in nice safe neighbor hoods, good public schools or access to private schools, parents who were educated professionals and could help them with homework and provide positive role models, had their college paid for, so they could focus on studying, when the got married they often had a good head start on a home/life with substantial monetary gifts for down payments, furniture, etc.
many white people in this country have those advantages…some people of color have the same, though not nearly as many.
so if you are white and fall into the above said category, maybe their is some validity to your white guilt and self hatred.
but there are a lot of white people who refuse to accept this and rightly so because they had none of those above mentioned advantages.
take me, (my mother is hispanic actually, but since my father is white, and i have an english sir-name, the government considers me white), both of my parents were illiterate, and poor, and came from poor families. I have seen gun play between my neighbors growing up, watched cops raid houses down the street from me, see husbands beat the shit out of their wives in the street, my parents could not help me with schoolwork after the 1st grade. i worked multiple shit jobs to get through college.
i dont buy into this bullshit, because i refuse to be stereotyped as the typical sheltered and privileged whitey.
i know this is difficult and hard on the ear to the masses of politically correct and brainwashed white guilty liberals, but it is a fact for many so called “white people”.
So basically the white advantage they speak of is having good caring parents. Well nothing is stopping any minority from being good parents and investing their life into their success.
That is why Indian and Asian Immigrants are also so successful, Both racial/cultural groups heavily invest in their children. They, like Whites, invest their life into their families. That breeds success very quickly and elevates the whole group.
I don’t buy any excuses. You have kids, you sacrifice to keep a family. You sacrifice to stay together and give your kinds a chance. Not having a father at home absolutely destroys any chance a boy or girl will have at good fortunes in life. Some do, but it’s a difficult path. And to be honest, is anyone’s path easy? It’s always easy to look at someone else and judge then as having it easy. What they never see is the dedication, sweat, perseverance that it took to get there.
Anyone can be racist. Think about this. Every year I ask my students if we have an immigration problem. The white and black kids say yes. The Hispanic kids say no. Then I ask them what if the border with Mexico was closed, but immigrants came across the Canadian border. They would be white and speak English obviously. Most of the kids don’t see that as such a problem. If immigration is the problem then why would their minds change about allowing Canadians in the country illegally? Mexicans are different in looks and language then Americans so they are easy to pick out. White AND black kids would rather accept illegal whites than illegal browns.
[quote]heavythrower wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Gregus wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
While I don’t agree with that, white privilege is real. As society progresses, it begins losing its power, but my generation and the ones before it certainly benefited from it.
I’m not saying that there’s anything that can be done to fix it, but to deny that it exists is foolhardy.
Noone benefited from nothing. For you to say that shows your political brainwashing. You should lash yourself 20 times to atone for the sins of your ancestors, then you can rest but still be a racist by the virtue of your skin.
It is not a sin to say that I benefited from something that a black man my age did not; it’s simply the truth.
A lot of white people’s grandparents went to college back in the 40’s. A lot of black folks back then weren’t even close to having that opportunity. Until the late 50’s, schools were segregated, and that absolutely set blacks back. There was nothing that guaranteed them the right to vote until 1964.
To say that these things didn’t have an affect on the present day is proving that you are, as usual, a babbling idiot when it comes to politics and history.
I didn’t benefit from anyone. My parents worked their fingers to the bone, wore salvation army clothing and bought used tires to keep junk cars running. EVERYONE has and has had it rough. We can thank the previous generations work that we can build on. But no matter what our family always strived for better and worked toward that goal through ANY adversity.
So you come from West Virginia. Congratulations.
But really, NOT everyone has had it rough. SOME people can thank previous generations- other people’s “previous generations” were lynched when they tried to vote and were shot for looking at white women wrong. How, exactly, is that similar to your upbringing, or to your problems?
Since its inception, this country has made a concerted effort to keep blacks in the lower class, whether it would like to admit it or not. That is, in the last 50 years, beginning to dissipate… but it takes longer than that for three hundred years of oppression to heal.
It’s that kind of mindset that builds futures. A mindset does not come from bitching about racism. Minorities which buy into racism are falling for the trap set for them.
Completely wrong. The mindset, spoken from a white man, about minorities needing to stop bitching about racism even though he has no idea what it’s like to be on the other side of the fence, is what puts this country back into the 1950s.
irish, i see what you are saying, but you dont realize the bigger point i think he was trying to make. many people of all colors(in this country, mostly white i admit) have an advantage out of the starting gate related to the socioeconomic class of their families. as a professional, i went to college and not work with mostly people who’s parents were middle-upper middle class, they had the benefit of growing up in nice safe neighbor hoods, good public schools or access to private schools, parents who were educated professionals and could help them with homework and provide positive role models, had their college paid for, so they could focus on studying, when the got married they often had a good head start on a home/life with substantial monetary gifts for down payments, furniture, etc.
many white people in this country have those advantages…some people of color have the same, though not nearly as many.
so if you are white and fall into the above said category, maybe their is some validity to your white guilt and self hatred.
but there are a lot of white people who refuse to accept this and rightly so because they had none of those above mentioned advantages.
take me, (my mother is hispanic actually, but since my father is white, and i have an english sir-name, the government considers me white), both of my parents were illiterate, and poor, and came from poor families. I have seen gun play between my neighbors growing up, watched cops raid houses down the street from me, see husbands beat the shit out of their wives in the street, my parents could not help me with schoolwork after the 1st grade. i worked multiple shit jobs to get through college.
i dont buy into this bullshit, because i refuse to be stereotyped as the typical sheltered and privileged whitey.
i know this is difficult and hard on the ear to the masses of politically correct and brainwashed white guilty liberals, but it is a fact for many so called “white people”.[/quote]
wWong, I started with an upper lower class family who valued hard work and doing well in school I’ve run my own chiropractor business and my sister has a Harvard degree and a law degree. By choice she is a stay at home mom.
Funny thing, at Havard she a met a nice Naval officer from a background like me. He is black. his sister has a law degree, his brother graduated from West Point and one from the Air force Academy.
They were from the same economic background as we were. It doesn’t matter where you start, but where you finish. Saying I had tough breaks and not trying do to a small penis, black skin, being gay or whatever is your personal failure, not your race’s failure, your aprents failure, or society’s failure.
[quote]heavythrower wrote:
irish, i see what you are saying, but you dont realize the bigger point i think he was trying to make. many people of all colors(in this country, mostly white i admit) have an advantage out of the starting gate related to the socioeconomic class of their families. as a professional, i went to college and not work with mostly people who’s parents were middle-upper middle class, they had the benefit of growing up in nice safe neighbor hoods, good public schools or access to private schools, parents who were educated professionals and could help them with homework and provide positive role models, had their college paid for, so they could focus on studying, when the got married they often had a good head start on a home/life with substantial monetary gifts for down payments, furniture, etc.
many white people in this country have those advantages…some people of color have the same, though not nearly as many.
so if you are white and fall into the above said category, maybe their is some validity to your white guilt and self hatred.
but there are a lot of white people who refuse to accept this and rightly so because they had none of those above mentioned advantages.
take me, (my mother is hispanic actually, but since my father is white, and i have an english sir-name, the government considers me white), both of my parents were illiterate, and poor, and came from poor families. I have seen gun play between my neighbors growing up, watched cops raid houses down the street from me, see husbands beat the shit out of their wives in the street, my parents could not help me with schoolwork after the 1st grade. i worked multiple shit jobs to get through college.
i dont buy into this bullshit, because i refuse to be stereotyped as the typical sheltered and privileged whitey.
i know this is difficult and hard on the ear to the masses of politically correct and brainwashed white guilty liberals, but it is a fact for many so called “white people”.[/quote]
I’m not talking directly about our (maybe, I don’t know how old you are) generation- the concept of “white privilege” goes back quite a ways, and more so the longer someone’s family has been here.
It may be something that you never even knew about, or something that you don’t know happened- a college application for your grandfather that got the nod because the name sounded American, a job that someone got rejected for a month before because they were black, etc.
I’m neither sheltered nor brainwashed- I just believe that it would be foolish to think that 300 years of blatant favoritism towards one race can just be erased in a single generation. Maybe by the time we’re older, it will have reached a level playing field, but right now, with most black men around 30 knowing full well that their parents weren’t allowed to vote, didn’t even attend the same schools as whites- it’s not the same.
My generation is beginning to even things out, but for generations prior, there was no comparison. Everyone acts like racism is either dead or has been for a while- in truth, as I’ve often said, if you’re a 35 year old black man, your father couldn’t vote, his father couldn’t go to school, his father was a starving sharecropper, and his father was a slave. You don’t simply “erase” that kind of advantage.
Again- that doesn’t mean that it “allows”, per se, a black man to vindicate failure in his own life. However, all of these factors have drawn together, from the drug war to the “White Flight” to racism and whatever else, to put blacks in poor, urban areas, and subject them to a plethora of difficulties that most white kids growing up in the suburbs will never encounter. thus, the climb is much more steep, and through no fault of the black man himself, he’s been put at a disadvantage since birth.
Grow up the in the ghetto? Dodge the drugs and the gangs. Get good grades? School systems suck, and you will get passed over unless you’re the best of the best. You have the specter of racism looming on every job application, every time you call for an apartment. Is it always there? No. But often enough that it changes the rules of the game.
It’s not as simple as, “Pick yourself up.” No one starts off wanting to be a drug addict, or a welfare case, and no mother wants their son to be a banger. But men are not islands… and society has it’s due effect on them.
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character” Martin Luther King JR.
To give any race any advantage or disadvantage is racist. We have the opportunity to make these words true but every time white guilt is played it pushes that opportunity back. Every time a racial slur is used by any race it pushes it back.
We need to stop looking at people as Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, or anything like that its time to start looking at them as Americans.