Racism Hits My Front Yard

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]BrwnbellyYankee wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
There is something to be said for having a level playing field and equal “rules” for all. So to some extent Owen is correct in that the media portrays a lopsided view of race in the US. For example, use the word “Cracker” and everyone laughs. But use the “N” word (which actually was just a slang version of where blacks originated from), and all hell breaks loose.
********** Correct me if i am wrong but the “N” word came from people in general not being capable of using the word “NEGRO” which was the scientifically correct term!
Brandon Green

So your saying that all blacks "originated " from the African country, Niger. If so you are ignorant. And it (the “N” word) was never a slang word, it was meant the way it was used, as being ignorant.
And the reason why the word cracker can be used is because at the time when the black slaves all spoke different languages and didn’t have any way of communicating, they came up with a common word to call their “masters” and that word just happen to be cracker, the sound the whip made.[/quote]

62

Although i am definitely against racism the only thing in my mind that seperates whites from other groups is their superior technology. If you can defeat someone else you can rule him and write the history books!
Brandon Green

63

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Professor X wrote:

What you will often find is that many of these people will act as if Egypt was a completely seperate part of the world in their rush to degrade an entire race of people. They will also ignore the fact that perhaps the desire to “conquer the world” wasn’t held by ancient African tribesmen. Why this is seen as a fault is beyond me. If anything, it would show the innate desire to be more a part of nature (as was also the case with Native Americans) rather than dominate it, conquer it, destroy it and lay claim to it.

I am all for the anti-racist theme of this thread, but this statement required a response.

No, Pro X - what you are espousing is romatic primitivism, and it is erroneous. You have this vision of the Noble Savage, or the Incorruptible Other - the darker skinned native that lived in a peaceful, environmentally utopian existence before the mean old Caucasians messed it all up with their conquests.

Nope. While it is popular with half-educated ‘theorists’, a reading of history tells otherwise.

Part of overcoming racism is speaking honestly and getting over the myths.

[/quote]

Myths? What myth did I dictate? I speculated in the positive while others speculated in the negative. You haven’t reprimanded those who claimed that ancient Africans couldn’t even develop the ability to write until Caucasians stepped in. Why is that? Odd.

64

Pathetic! A man posts a legitimate gripe about a personal issue that impacted his family. Then some ignorant pseudo-educated clown (owen dent) mounts his soapbox and spouts out a mouthful of garbage. What you should have done, owen dent, is shut the fuck up; you obviously have nothing good to say. This post was probably the man’s way to vent or some sort of coping mechanism. Offer support, not judgement. If anything, you should judge yourself. Maybe you already have, so you feel obligated to defend yourself while you put someone else down. Being proud of your culture is fine; imposing your warped mindset on others isn’t. The mere fact that you have to announce that you have had many black friends (exactly how many), makes you suspect. Actually, I am surprised you have any friends. Whoopie! You (a white person) did some good things for some black people. Once again, why point it out; trying to convince someone of how non-racist you are? Who gives a shit. Some white men marry black women yet are prejudice against black men; vice-versa applies. The bottom line is the man’s children suffered a blow to the psyche due in part to an ignorant ass like yourself that wanted to terrorize a neighorhood and spread ignorance. That’s the very thing I am over here in Iraq trying to combat. Nevertheless, this might be a blessing in disguise, because it’s an opportunity to prepare children for what they are sure to face; especially after reading these posts.

BTW-Professor X, you pleasantly surprised me with your posts. WMD you are funny as shit.

AF Sergeant

65

[quote]WMD wrote:

Racism is for fucktards.

WMD[/quote]

There’s a lot of prejudice against racists, you know :wink:

66

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
WMD wrote:

Racism is for fucktards.

WMD

There’s a lot of prejudice against racists, you know ;-)[/quote]

Yeah! Wreckless is right! You guys are the assholes for discriminating against people who are clearly stupid and ignorant!

Just because someone doesn’t read books is no reason to think they’re less than you! Just because someone hasn’t the slightest idea what he’s talking about doesn’t make his opinion any less valid than your’s!

And…I wasn’t going to do this until I saw this post, but Lumbernac invited me to chat yesterday and told me some very interesting things: did you know the British ruled South Africa? Neither did I, what with my education and all.

Neuter the dumb.

67

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Myths? What myth did I dictate? I speculated in the positive while others speculated in the negative. You haven’t reprimanded those who claimed that ancient Africans couldn’t even develop the ability to write until Caucasians stepped in. Why is that? Odd.[/quote]

First, the idea that Native Americans had some utopian harmny with nature is erroneous. You suggested:

This is a false statement.

Second, it was a matter of time before I ‘reprimanded’ them. Don’t try and read in some undertone of latent racism when my first post in this thread establishes, without question, my strong opinions on ignorant racism.

These morons - be they pro-White civilization or pro-Black civilization - are wasting time on this silly pissing contest over which race built better societies. Societies rise and fall and it has nothing to do with the pigment of their skin. Western civilization is by far the superior civilization in history, but is it the province of ‘whites’? No. Skin color doesn’t make one think up the great institutions of Western civilization.

Besides, civilization crawled out of the Mediterranean area - what are the chances the ‘Founding Fathers’ of civilization there were white boys? It doesn’t work that way.

As such, races are often tied to cultures, and there has to be an accounting for that. But to suggest that ‘whites’ or ‘blacks’ did this or that misses the entire point - under the flag of the Roman Empire, for example, there were quite a few ethnicities, some with stark differences, others more subtle. It is the culture that sustains or destroys a society, and race, as a biological matter, has nothing to do with it.

68

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
First, the idea that Native Americans had some utopian harmny with nature is erroneous. You suggested:

If anything, it would show the innate desire to be more a part of nature (as was also the case with Native Americans) rather than dominate it, conquer it, destroy it and lay claim to it.

This is a false statement. [/quote]

Again, how is it false? We don’t even have a utopian society so why would you assume that I meant everyone was living in Paradise? Human beings are warring creatures who consume their environment. The closest relation to our activity on this planet can be found in viruses. Those Native Americans and ancient Africans had wars like the rest of the world, however, they can’t be associated with a strong desire to dominate the entire continent they lived on. Unless you have proof otherwise, I stand by that opinion based on what I know of both cultures.

Early settlers to America called it Manifest Destiny, the almost religious belief that it was God’s plan that the new World be slowly advanced upon and settled in completely. Neither of those other cultures seemed to possess this mentality. That was the point being made and until you prove otherwise, it is one I stand by.

69

[quote]Professor X wrote:
…

What you will often find is that many of these people will act as if Egypt was a completely seperate part of the world in their rush to degrade an entire race of people. They will also ignore the fact that perhaps the desire to “conquer the world” wasn’t held by ancient African tribesmen. Why this is seen as a fault is beyond me. If anything, it would show the innate desire to be more a part of nature (as was also the case with Native Americans) rather than dominate it, conquer it, destroy it and lay claim to it. [/quote]

Egypt is of course completely separated from sub-saharan Africa.

It is hard to lump it together with the rest of Africa because of geography.

It really fits much better if you treat look at the Mediterranean region as a seperate entity from Sub-Saharan Africa and separate from Northern Europe.

Sub-Saharan African tribesmen never had the means to conquer the world so it is hard to tell what they would have done in different circumstances.

In general Sub-Saharan Africans did the best they could with the resources they had. They had great difficulties sharing culture and technologies with much of the world due to the way the continent of Africa is set up.

None of this has anything to do with skin color and genetics.

Culture generally follows the circumstances of life. Sub-Saharan Africans were ripped unwillingly from their homes and shipped across the ocean to an alien culture. It is no wonder there have been difficlties adapting.

How our culture got to be they way it is today is a fascinating subject, but there are too many people that chime in with dumbass theories.

My point of this ramble is that trying to put down Africa because they did not develop their own system of writing is ludicrous. Writing only developd a couple of places and then migrated around the world. It is tough to migrate to Sub-Saharan Africa so they adopted writing later.

Northern Europe did not really develop much on its own either but it was much easier for things to migrate to Northern Europe than it was for things to migrate to Sub-Saharan Africa.

70

[quote]harris447 wrote:
…

And…I wasn’t going to do this until I saw this post, but Lumbernac invited me to chat yesterday and told me some very interesting things: did you know the British ruled South Africa? Neither did I, what with my education and all.

Neuter the dumb.[/quote]

I am not sure what he said, the the British role in South Africa was very significant.

71

Thunderbolt is making some good points.

The romanticism of the Native American and African societies is often overrated. There have been myths set up to make these societies look better than they actually were. These myths are a defense against racism, but I do not believe they are necessary.

Without getting into any morality issues, in general societies that could generate enough food were superior because they could keep more people alive to grow their populations.

Much of Africa and the Americas were based on hunter/gatherer type societies with limited farming. This can be seen by the crops that were available. These societies do not produce enough food to maintain nearly the population of farming based societies.

The same thing can be seen in Asia. The hunter gatherers were squeezed out by the farmers.

I think keeping people alive and population growth is the largest measure of success.

There are of course many other very important issues, but they all are secondary to survival.

None of this has anything to do with skin color.

Debating the merits of ancient societies often falls into the race haters trap.

72

[quote]BrwnbellyYankee wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
There is something to be said for having a level playing field and equal “rules” for all. So to some extent Owen is correct in that the media portrays a lopsided view of race in the US. For example, use the word “Cracker” and everyone laughs. But use the “N” word (which actually was just a slang version of where blacks originated from), and all hell breaks loose.

So your saying that all blacks "originated " from the African country, Niger. If so you are ignorant. And it (the “N” word) was never a slang word, it was meant the way it was used, as being ignorant.
And the reason why the word cracker can be used is because at the time when the black slaves all spoke different languages and didn’t have any way of communicating, they came up with a common word to call their “masters” and that word just happen to be cracker, the sound the whip made.[/quote]

Bro, at some point you may want to open your eyes and admit you don’t know what you are talking about. I guess you haven’t heard, but many in the scientific community and black community have been saying for a few years now that ALL life (humans) originated from Africa. Not just blacks. So your uninformed comment about not all blacks coming from Africa would be contrary to what the current thought is. I don’t know if I buy that or not, but that is the current idea.

In any case, the use of the “N” word did come from a location, whether you want to believe it or not. It’s a fact. But whether it is correct as to the actual origin of the person was not really the issue. The issue was that it was a way to classify or separate out people that look a certain way. Just like you have probably used the term Latino, which is also a term used to classify someone, but inaccurate in terms of origin.

It sounds like to me that you are just making excuses but excusing one form of racial slander and condemning another. You are a perfect example of what Owen is talking about. Either it is wrong to use both the “N” word and Cracker or it is not. Both ARE used as derogatory comments and therefore both should not be acceptable. In addition, I feel that any term used to separate anyone else simply because of their skin color or country of origin it not appropriate either.

73

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Human beings are warring creatures who consume their environment. The closest relation to our activity on this planet can be found in viruses.
[/quote]

Dude, you have been watching too much of the first Matrix movie.

The only reason humans or even certain societies are now pushing back the boundaries of nature is because of the population volume. And that, my friend is partly your fault as a physician. 2,000 years ago people died as frequently or more frequently than people were being born.

With advancing cultures came advances in knowledge in ways to keep people healthy longer. This has reduced the death rate significantly, which increases lifespan and increased the population. Thus, increasing the need for more space to live.

The societies that advanced the quickest were a result of focusing on acute vs chronic conditions. Which makes sense since acute conditions will kill you today and chronic may not kill you for years.

The Western medical model was very effective in reducing death from acute health conditions, so the result was a larger increase in population.

Now before anyone brings up China’s population be sure you know what the hell you are talking about. Even though Western medicine doesn’t understand Chinese medicine, the fact is that it is affective and has been a documented system of health care for hundreds of years BEFORE Western medicine even started. And the point is that Chinese medicine is an acute based system as well. So sighting China only supports my premise.

74

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Human beings are warring creatures who consume their environment. The closest relation to our activity on this planet can be found in viruses.

Dude, you have been watching too much of the first Matrix movie. [/quote]

The first Matrix movie got the idea in part from the movie Virus starring Jamie Lee Curtis in 1999. Movies are one thing I know pretty well, however, the concept has been around long before anyone put it on film.

[quote]
The only reason humans or even certain societies are now pushing back the boundaries of nature is because of the population volume. And that, my friend is partly your fault as a physician. 2,000 years ago people died as frequently or more frequently than people were being born.

With advancing cultures came advances in knowledge in ways to keep people healthy longer. This has reduced the death rate significantly, which increases lifespan and increased the population. Thus, increasing the need for more space to live.

The societies that advanced the quickest were a result of focusing on acute vs chronic conditions. Which makes sense since acute conditions will kill you today and chronic may not kill you for years. [/quote]

And this varies from the analogy I wrote how?

You make a good point but it isn’t something we aren’t aware of. It doesn’t change the actions of of humans on this planet in terms of using up available resources and moving on. We have simply created a rooted society so there isn’t anywhere else to go. The inevitable is that we will eventually use up or destroy the sources of energy we currently use and will either have to create a new source, reinvent an old source or find residence on another planet. I like science fiction too.

75

Actually, my comment on prejudice against racist was only meant to be semi-funny.

Arian trailertrash is not the first concern. They are fighting a loosing battle.

The main problem are the people that claim to have black friends, but won’t hire a black employer to help out in their shop. It’s the officer who would have let a white guy of the hook, but because the driver is black, he gets a ticket. Little stuff.
When a black family tries to enlist their kids in a school, and somehow they feel less the welcome.

Let’s face it guys. We’re all a bit racist. We all have to fight racism in ourselves.

And everybody who claims: NOT ME ! ! !

Picture this: you’re invited to a bbq by one of your black friends. When you turn up, it seems you’re the only white family there. Wouldn’t you feel a bit akward? I know I would.

Now that feeling, that’s racism. And it’s in all of us.

Doesn’t mean we have to behave like racists though. Just means we have to recognise the feeling and keep it in check.

Just like the “lust out of controll” thread says. Just we FEEL like humping every female in sight, doesn’t mean we actually do it.

76

[quote]Professor X wrote:
If anything, it would show the innate desire to be more a part of nature (as was also the case with Native Americans) rather than dominate it, conquer it, destroy it and lay claim to it.

…

Again, how is it false? We don’t even have a utopian society so why would you assume that I meant everyone was living in Paradise? Human beings are warring creatures who consume their environment. The closest relation to our activity on this planet can be found in viruses. Those Native Americans and ancient Africans had wars like the rest of the world, however, they can’t be associated with a strong desire to dominate the entire continent they lived on. Unless you have proof otherwise, I stand by that opinion based on what I know of both cultures.

Early settlers to America called it Manifest Destiny, the almost religious belief that it was God’s plan that the new World be slowly advanced upon and settled in completely. Neither of those other cultures seemed to possess this mentality. That was the point being made and until you prove otherwise, it is one I stand by.
[/quote]

You specifically mentioned living in harmony with Nature - but hunter-gatherers and pre-horticulturalists were known for their slash-and-burn horticulture, which wrecked local ecosystems, and hunter-gatherers have a localized history of overhunting species.

As for domination of the continent, did they not have the desire or did they not have the means?

Moreover, your Manifest Destiny attitude is right - but you imply that Native Americans had no designs on controlling territory to the exclusion of their neighbors. But that isn’t so - the Sioux, as an example, moved from the north into the plains and murderously displaced the Omahas, Iowas, Arikara, Kiowa, Crows, and Pawnee.

Your thesis - that Native Americans don’t do such things - is erroneous, regardless of your ‘sticking by your opinion’.

77

When I first read this thread, I was speechless. I can’t imagine anyone justifying the propaganda that was left (especially where it was left). Those poor kids! My heart goes out to them.

After reading what this thread evolved into, I think I’m going to have an aneurysm.
I’ve been the lone cracker at the “all-black” bbq. I enjoyed it and had great fellowship with good friends and good food. I didn’t feel awkward because no-one made an issue out of it.

I was also told (when trying to get a job after college) by an administrator of a certain hospital in south GA that I would have an easier time getting hired if I were a minority. That DID make me feel awkward.

My point is that there are idiots on both sides of the fence in these types of issues. Common sense, while rarely used in these cases, and a little goodwill toward fellow man, would solve a lot of these problems.

78

[quote]USAFMTI wrote:
Pathetic! A man posts a legitimate gripe about a personal issue that impacted his family. Then some ignorant pseudo-educated clown (owen dent) mounts his soapbox and spouts out a mouthful of garbage. What you should have done, owen dent, is shut the fuck up; you obviously have nothing good to say. This post was probably the man’s way to vent or some sort of coping mechanism. Offer support, not judgement. If anything, you should judge yourself. Maybe you already have, so you feel obligated to defend yourself while you put someone else down. Being proud of your culture is fine; imposing your warped mindset on others isn’t. The mere fact that you have to announce that you have had many black friends (exactly how many), makes you suspect. Actually, I am surprised you have any friends. Whoopie! You (a white person) did some good things for some black people. Once again, why point it out; trying to convince someone of how non-racist you are? Who gives a shit. Some white men marry black women yet are prejudice against black men; vice-versa applies. The bottom line is the man’s children suffered a blow to the psyche due in part to an ignorant ass like yourself that wanted to terrorize a neighorhood and spread ignorance. That’s the very thing I am over here in Iraq trying to combat. Nevertheless, this might be a blessing in disguise, because it’s an opportunity to prepare children for what they are sure to face; especially after reading these posts.
AF Sergeant[/quote]

All I can say to this is, Amen! Thank you for post. Keep your head down and stay safe over there.

79

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You specifically mentioned living in harmony with Nature - but hunter-gatherers and pre-horticulturalists were known for their slash-and-burn horticulture, which wrecked local ecosystems, and hunter-gatherers have a localized history of overhunting species.

As for domination of the continent, did they not have the desire or did they not have the means?

Moreover, your Manifest Destiny attitude is right - but you imply that Native Americans had no designs on controlling territory to the exclusion of their neighbors. But that isn’t so - the Sioux, as an example, moved from the north into the plains and murderously displaced the Omahas, Iowas, Arikara, Kiowa, Crows, and Pawnee.

Your thesis - that Native Americans don’t do such things - is erroneous, regardless of your ‘sticking by your opinion’.

[/quote]

That must be the 3rd time you have used the word “erroneous”. Please, find a thesaurus. It isn’t that great of a word for this much use, especially when it doesn’t even apply.

There were five dominant tribes of Native American indians, the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee, Creek and Seminole. Each of these had complex systems of government so it isn’t like these were just dumbass savages running around half naked fucking up land and killing off animals. Had complete domination of the continent been the goal, much more war between tribes would have gone on. These weren’t dumb people. Yes, there were wars over territory, but nowhere near the expansion of the early American settlers. It isn’t like settlers jumped off the Mayflower with palm pilots and intel software. Exactly how “advanced” do you want to believe the early settlers were? The difference seems to be in the motivation surrounding the culture. If the Native Americans had wanted to live for domination of all their surroundings, they could have done so. How successful they would have been could be up for debate, but it didn’t happen. It isn’t just because europeans were so much smarter than every other culture. Much has to do with the desire to conquer which must have been built into that society. That is the point being made. You haven’t shown this to not be the case. Pointing out wars between tribes doesn’t show the desire to spread across the continent and own it.

80

[quote]mica617 wrote:
When I first read this thread, I was speechless. I can’t imagine anyone justifying the propaganda that was left (especially where it was left). Those poor kids! My heart goes out to them.

After reading what this thread evolved into, I think I’m going to have an aneurysm.
I’ve been the lone cracker at the “all-black” bbq. I enjoyed it and had great fellowship with good friends and good food. I didn’t feel awkward because no-one made an issue out of it.

I was also told (when trying to get a job after college) by an administrator of a certain hospital in south GA that I would have an easier time getting hired if I were a minority. That DID make me feel awkward.

My point is that there are idiots on both sides of the fence in these types of issues. Common sense, while rarely used in these cases, and a little goodwill toward fellow man, would solve a lot of these problems.[/quote]

I agree with most of your post, but don’t think it’s a positve thing to promote racial slurs like “cracker”, whether or not you are using it for yourself. If you want to stop the division than start with dropping the divisive language.