Counter Racism

[Berkshire]

Cmon SP, get serious. A black person using it to address another black person is not the same as a white person using it to address a black person. Or haven't you heard about what happened at the University of Oklahoma just a couple of days ago?

I am being deadly serious, if the term is offensive, the term is offensive irrespective of who is using it, and the fact that someone can discriminate and say its ok for one racial group of people to use the term and not another, is racist in itself, rather hypocritical IMHO so in some respects you have just proved the OP's whole premise for his post, granted he has picked some bad examples, in mentioning things like the KK, but his premise is sound

In South Africa the term "Kaffir" is outlawed completely irrespective of whether the person is black, white or what ever shade of the rainbow a person is, and persons using it can be subject to criminal charges.

Listen, SP, I don't want to go around in circles with this. It's not simple to explain, especially if people are not willing to listen. But just using the Univ. of Oklahoma example, I watched CNN this morning and the President of OU explained his swift action (expelling the two white students) by saying that the words/speech created a "hostile environment." Now honestly, if black folks use that word amongst themselves, is it going to create a "hostile environment?" Rhetorical question.

Anyways, if you really want a "rational debate" about race relations, I would think you'd want an African-American perspective. Or at least someone on the other side. Not just people who agrees with you. I'm not black, so it's not really my fight. And I can tell that this debate is going to get certain peoples' panties in a twist. You know, using all caps and the like when they disagree. I won't stoop to that.

[Soutpeel]

Cmon SP, get serious. A black person using it to address another black person is not the same as a white person using it to address a black person. Or haven't you heard about what happened at the University of Oklahoma just a couple of days ago?

I am being deadly serious, if the term is offensive, the term is offensive irrespective of who is using it, and the fact that someone can discriminate and say its ok for one racial group of people to use the term and not another, is racist in itself, rather hypocritical IMHO so in some respects you have just proved the OP's whole premise for his post, granted he has picked some bad examples, in mentioning things like the KK, but his premise is sound

In South Africa the term "Kaffir" is outlawed completely irrespective of whether the person is black, white or what ever shade of the rainbow a person is, and persons using it can be subject to criminal charges.

Listen, SP, I don't want to go around in circles with this. It's not simple to explain, especially if people are not willing to listen. But just using the Univ. of Oklahoma example, I watched CNN this morning and the President of OU explained his swift action (expelling the two white students) by saying that the words/speech created a "hostile environment." Now honestly, if black folks use that word amongst themselves, is it going to create a "hostile environment?" Rhetorical question.

Anyways, if you really want a "rational debate" about race relations, I would think you'd want an African-American perspective. Or at least someone on the other side. Not just people who agrees with you. I'm not black, so it's not really my fight. And I can tell that this debate is going to get certain peoples' panties in a twist. You know, using all caps and the like when they disagree. I won't stoop to that.

Why are you going around in circles with me, you have an opinion and so do I, so stop trying to be so patronizing.

why does it have to be and African-American giving an opinion ?, why not just a plain African, or a black Cuban or a black Brazilian, surely your not being racist suggesting only an African American has valid opinion on this question, are you ?

further you seem to be inferring some form of moral superiority suggesting I am not listening or don't understand. I think you will find I understand more about things like this than you ever will

[Gecko123]

Cmon SP, get serious. A black person using it to address another black person is not the same as a white person using it to address a black person. Or haven't you heard about what happened at the University of Oklahoma just a couple of days ago?

I am being deadly serious, if the term is offensive, the term is offensive irrespective of who is using it, and the fact that someone can discriminate and say its ok for one racial group of people to use the term and not another, is racist in itself, rather hypocritical IMHO so in some respects you have just proved the OP's whole premise for his post, granted he has picked some bad examples, in mentioning things like the KK, but his premise is sound

In South Africa the term "Kaffir" is outlawed completely irrespective of whether the person is black, white or what ever shade of the rainbow a person is, and persons using it can be subject to criminal charges.

Listen, SP, I don't want to go around in circles with this. It's not simple to explain, especially if people are not willing to listen. But just using the Univ. of Oklahoma example, I watched CNN this morning and the President of OU explained his swift action (expelling the two white students) by saying that the words/speech created a "hostile environment." Now honestly, if black folks use that word amongst themselves, is it going to create a "hostile environment?" Rhetorical question.

Anyways, if you really want a "rational debate" about race relations, I would think you'd want an African-American perspective. Or at least someone on the other side. Not just people who agrees with you. I'm not black, so it's not really my fight. And I can tell that this debate is going to get certain peoples' panties in a twist. You know, using all caps and the like when they disagree. I won't stoop to that.

Soutpeel:

The use of the "N-word" is controversial in the black community. I would venture to say that most of its use is limited to rap culture, pop culture and lower class culture. Many in the black community make the same arguments you do that the use of this term is misguided, condones and legitimizes the use of the term, and therefore should not be used by black people.

This debate about whether white people should be able to use this word freely, or whether affirmative action and quotas are a form of reverse discrimination conveniently ignore the history of these issues. The use of the N-word by white people when directed at black people is intended to convey racial superiority, racial condescension, racial disrespect and to be hurtful. It also, often intentionally, evokes painful memories of America's not so distant history of slavery and Jim Crow apartheid laws.

When it is used by black Americans, it is most often used as a fraternal term of intimacy or jocular banter. While some blacks might use that term in anger or in a hurtful way, even then it does not have the same emotional weight as when a white person uses this term to a black person. The "N-word" when used by a black person towards another black person doesn't carry the same racial significance because when both the speaker and listener are black, it's simply not possible to be racially condescending to a person with whom you share the same racial background. It's the same thing were a white person to call another white person a "cracker" or a "honkie." While this would most likely be a source of amusement between two white people, were a black person to call a white person these names, it is far more likely that this would be viewed as inflammatory or cause for offense.

The mistake the OP and others who agree with him are making is that these issues can't be treated as if they suddenly appeared out of nowhere yesterday. They have to be looked at in a historical context.

Edited March 12, 2015 by Gecko123

[RichieHuaHin]

Why are you going around in circles with me, you have an opinion and so do I, so stop trying to be so patronizing.

The guy is not going round in circles, nor is he being patronizing.

The guy has got it right.

Move on. Stop spamming.

[Cypress Hill]

Soutpeel:

The use of the "N-word" is controversial in the black community. I would venture to say that most of its use is limited to rap culture, pop culture and lower class culture. Many in the black community make the same arguments you do that the use of this term is misguided, condones and legitimizes the use of the term, and therefore should not be used by black people.

This debate about whether white people should be able to use this word freely, or whether affirmative action and quotas are a form of reverse discrimination conveniently ignore the history of these issues. The use of the N-word by white people when directed at black people is intended to convey racial superiority, racial condescension, racial disrespect and to be hurtful. It also, often intentionally, evokes painful memories of America's not so distant history of slavery and Jim Crow apartheid laws.

When it is used by black Americans, it is most often used as a fraternal term of intimacy or jocular banter. While some blacks might use that term in anger or in a hurtful way, even then it does not have the same emotional weight as when a white person uses this term to a black person. The "N-word" when used by a black person towards another black person doesn't carry the same racial significance because when both the speaker and listener are black, it's simply not possible to be racially condescending to a person with whom you share the same racial background. It's the same thing were a white person to call another white person a "cracker" or a "honkie." While this would most likely be a source of amusement between two white people, were a black person to call a white person these names, it is far more likely that this would be viewed as inflammatory or cause for offense.

The mistake the OP and others who agree with him are making is that these issues can't be treated as if they suddenly appeared out of nowhere yesterday. They have to be looked at in a historical context.

Some blacks take offence on hearing the word regardless of the ethnicity of the person using it but the umbrage is magnified by a factor of 10 when the user is white for the reasons Gecko123 gave.

[Berkshire]

Cmon SP, get serious. A black person using it to address another black person is not the same as a white person using it to address a black person. Or haven't you heard about what happened at the University of Oklahoma just a couple of days ago?

I am being deadly serious, if the term is offensive, the term is offensive irrespective of who is using it, and the fact that someone can discriminate and say its ok for one racial group of people to use the term and not another, is racist in itself, rather hypocritical IMHO so in some respects you have just proved the OP's whole premise for his post, granted he has picked some bad examples, in mentioning things like the KK, but his premise is sound

In South Africa the term "Kaffir" is outlawed completely irrespective of whether the person is black, white or what ever shade of the rainbow a person is, and persons using it can be subject to criminal charges.

Listen, SP, I don't want to go around in circles with this. It's not simple to explain, especially if people are not willing to listen. But just using the Univ. of Oklahoma example, I watched CNN this morning and the President of OU explained his swift action (expelling the two white students) by saying that the words/speech created a "hostile environment." Now honestly, if black folks use that word amongst themselves, is it going to create a "hostile environment?" Rhetorical question.

Anyways, if you really want a "rational debate" about race relations, I would think you'd want an African-American perspective. Or at least someone on the other side. Not just people who agrees with you. I'm not black, so it's not really my fight. And I can tell that this debate is going to get certain peoples' panties in a twist. You know, using all caps and the like when they disagree. I won't stoop to that.

Soutpeel:

The use of the "N-word" is controversial in the black community. I would venture to say that most of its use is limited to rap culture, pop culture and lower class culture. Many in the black community make the same arguments you do that the use of this term is misguided, condones and legitimizes the use of the term, and therefore should not be used by black people.

This debate about whether white people should be able to use this word freely, or whether affirmative action and quotas are a form of reverse discrimination conveniently ignore the history of these issues. The use of the N-word by white people when directed at black people is intended to convey racial superiority, racial condescension, racial disrespect and to be hurtful. It also, often intentionally, evokes painful memories of America's not so distant history of slavery and Jim Crow apartheid laws.

When it is used by black Americans, it is most often used as a fraternal term of intimacy or jocular banter. While some blacks might use that term in anger or in a hurtful way, even then it does not have the same emotional weight as when a white person uses this term to a black person. The "N-word" when used by a black person towards another black person doesn't carry the same racial significance because when both the speaker and listener are black, it's simply not possible to be racially condescending to a person with whom you share the same racial background. It's the same thing were a white person to call another white person a "cracker" or a "honkie." While this would most likely be a source of amusement between two white people, were a black person to call a white person these names, it is far more likely that this would be viewed as inflammatory or cause for offense.

The mistake the OP and others who agree with him are making is that these issues can't be treated as if they suddenly appeared out of nowhere yesterday. They have to be looked at in a historical context.

Very, very well explained, Gecko. I just wonder if SP and those like him will even make an attempt to understand.

[cooked]

A lot of these fruitless arguments stem from the fact that,since the end of WW2 (World War 2 for those that have forgotten), whities have had it drummed into them that they should have a bad conscience because they colonised instead of letting themselves be colonised, profited from the slave trade that was already going on when they got there (and still IS going on, in a big way, in many Muslim countries), and from which they themselves had extensively suffered when trading in the Mediterranean, and eventually, despite incompetence and mismanagement, managed to surmount most of the problems that they were confronted with.

If you complain about Muslims refusing to integrate in the UK, you are called a racist. If you mention the fact that 1300 years of first cousin marriages amongst Muslims has produced a race that has double the number of children in requirement of special education than Europeans, you are called a racist, even if statistics back this up. I don't care if you call me a racist, the argument just slaps into the wall behind me. I am picking on the Muslims here as they are easy meat to deal with. There are many other examples.

[Gecko123]

A lot of these fruitless arguments stem from the fact that,since the end of WW2 (World War 2 for those that have forgotten), whities have had it drummed into them that they should have a bad conscience because they colonised instead of letting themselves be colonised, profited from the slave trade that was already going on when they got there (and still IS going on, in a big way, in many Muslim countries), and from which they themselves had extensively suffered when trading in the Mediterranean, and eventually, despite incompetence and mismanagement, managed to surmount most of the problems that they were confronted with.

If you complain about Muslims refusing to integrate in the UK, you are called a racist. If you mention the fact that 1300 years of first cousin marriages amongst Muslims has produced a race that has double the number of children in requirement of special education than Europeans, you are called a racist, even if statistics back this up. I don't care if you call me a racist, the argument just slaps into the wall behind me. I am picking on the Muslims here as they are easy meat to deal with. There are many other examples.

What's your solution to easing racial and ethnic tensions, cooked? If everyone thought like you, the world would be a bleak place indeed.

If it's all about Muslims "refusing" to integrate into Western European society, how do you explain that Muslims in America appear to be better assimilated into American culture than Muslims in Western Europe? Any relationship is a two-way street; improvement requires effort from both sides.

It's also undeniable that the slave trade and colonization did enormous economic and social damage to the countries and regions which were exploited, and that many modern day regional tensions and conflicts can be traced back to these activities. That's not liberal brainwashing as you put it, it's historical fact.

Guys like you sound like you want to turn back the hands of time. I just don't think that's a viable solution to the problems confronting today's world.

[Cypress Hill]

A lot of these fruitless arguments stem from the fact that,since the end of WW2 (World War 2 for those that have forgotten), whities have had it drummed into them that they should have a bad conscience because they colonised instead of letting themselves be colonised, profited from the slave trade that was already going on when they got there (and still IS going on, in a big way, in many Muslim countries), and from which they themselves had extensively suffered when trading in the Mediterranean, and eventually, despite incompetence and mismanagement, managed to surmount most of the problems that they were confronted with.

If you complain about Muslims refusing to integrate in the UK, you are called a racist. If you mention the fact that 1300 years of first cousin marriages amongst Muslims has produced a race that has double the number of children in requirement of special education than Europeans, you are called a racist, even if statistics back this up. I don't care if you call me a racist, the argument just slaps into the wall behind me. I am picking on the Muslims here as they are easy meat to deal with. There are many other examples.

What's your solution to easing racial and ethnic tensions, cooked? If everyone thought like you, the world would be a bleak place indeed.

If it's all about Muslims "refusing" to integrate into Western European society, how do you explain that Muslims in America appear to be better assimilated into American culture than Muslims in Western Europe? Any relationship is a two-way street; improvement requires effort from both sides.

It's also undeniable that the slave trade and colonization did enormous economic and social damage to the countries and regions which were exploited, and that many modern day regional tensions and conflicts can be traced back to these activities. That's not liberal brainwashing as you put it, it's historical fact.

Guys like you sound like you want to turn back the hands of time. I just don't think that's a viable solution to the problems confronting today's world.

You're wasting your time, Gecko123. How apt is your comment about "turning back the hands of time"? People like this aren't nearly as bothered about understanding the root of the problems surrounding race than they are about attempting to absolve themselves of blame and even denying their part in how events have unfolded. Talking about a slave trade that was in place "when they arrived" as though that somehow meant they HAD to partake or be colonised themselves?? Ridiculous.

If you wanna know just how pampered and soft these people are, just observe the speed with which cries of racism erupt when they're charged an extra 10 baht by a motorbike taxi. How long would they last against REAL oppression and persecution by an entire STATE, not just a few individuals

[Gecko123]

I know, Cypress Hill.

This talk about genetic inferiority, the scapegoating and blaming of religious and ethnic minorities for social ills, the dehumanizing of people by referring to them as "meat", the arguing that the aggressor/exploiter is the true victim, and that there is a "big lie" conspiracy afoot. So many of these comments could have come directly from a 1932 National Socialist Party (Nazi) campaign pamphlet. All you need to do is substitute Muslim for Jew. It's truly quite alarming.

That's why I asked what solutions people have to offer. Because if a person has a "I'm done talking" mindset, what solutions are left? Eugenics, euthanasia, sterilizations, 20 foot border walls, deportations, round ups, concentration camps, work camps, death camps, police state surveillance, constant security threat warnings and endless war? In other words, exactly what the Nazi party delivered. Is that the world you want to live in? I sure don't.

People need to start thinking about how to solve these problems in a way that is beneficial to everyone. Emphasis on the word everyone.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Gecko123

[benalibina]

I know, Cypress Hill.

This talk about genetic inferiority, the scapegoating and blaming of religious and ethnic minorities for social ills, the dehumanizing of people by referring to them as "meat", the arguing that the aggressor/exploiter is the true victim, and that there is a "big lie" conspiracy afoot. So many of these comments could have come directly from a 1932 National Socialist Party (Nazi) campaign pamphlet. All you need to do is substitute Muslim for Jew. It's truly quite alarming.

That's why I asked what solutions people have to offer. Because if a person has a "I'm done talking" mindset, what solutions are left? Eugenics, euthanasia, sterilizations, 20 foot border walls, deportations, round ups, concentration camps, work camps, death camps, police state surveillance, constant security threat warnings and endless war? In other words, exactly what the Nazi party delivered. Is that the world you want to live in? I sure don't.

People need to start thinking about how to solve these problems in a way that is beneficial to everyone. Emphasis on the word everyone.

Your last 2 sentences.....thats the key. That is really difficult though because of the different basic groundrules regarding....being human.....what does it encompass ? Reasons for that being...culture, religion, education (or lack of it) etc etc...

Btw.....dehumanizing....appears in many different forms......for people who are in fact the agressor, you correct, they like to play the role of victim. I know that personally. Not easy for other people to see through it on the small scale so on the big scale, it is similar.

[cooked]

A lot of these fruitless arguments stem from the fact that,since the end of WW2 (World War 2 for those that have forgotten), whities have had it drummed into them that they should have a bad conscience because they colonised instead of letting themselves be colonised, profited from the slave trade that was already going on when they got there (and still IS going on, in a big way, in many Muslim countries), and from which they themselves had extensively suffered when trading in the Mediterranean, and eventually, despite incompetence and mismanagement, managed to surmount most of the problems that they were confronted with.

If you complain about Muslims refusing to integrate in the UK, you are called a racist. If you mention the fact that 1300 years of first cousin marriages amongst Muslims has produced a race that has double the number of children in requirement of special education than Europeans, you are called a racist, even if statistics back this up. I don't care if you call me a racist, the argument just slaps into the wall behind me. I am picking on the Muslims here as they are easy meat to deal with. There are many other examples.

What's your solution to easing racial and ethnic tensions, cooked? If everyone thought like you, the world would be a bleak place indeed.

If it's all about Muslims "refusing" to integrate into Western European society, how do you explain that Muslims in America appear to be better assimilated into American culture than Muslims in Western Europe? Any relationship is a two-way street; improvement requires effort from both sides.

It's also undeniable that the slave trade and colonization did enormous economic and social damage to the countries and regions which were exploited, and that many modern day regional tensions and conflicts can be traced back to these activities. That's not liberal brainwashing as you put it, it's historical fact.

Guys like you sound like you want to turn back the hands of time. I just don't think that's a viable solution to the problems confronting today's world.

Right let's give this a go and let's leave political correctness to the side, shall we?

In Europe, in contrast to America, and at least in in those countries that provide free health care, education and make housing available, there are problems. Saying that it aint so is avoiding the facts and statistics. In the UK for sure, employers dislike employing Muslims because they disrupt work by insisting on having prayer breaks AND a prayer room and Islam holidays. Many have gone to work in supermarkets and then refused to handle pork or alcohol and so on...One reason why they feel like outsiders. Other groups of immigrants came and assimilated. In America, I doubt that you have many towns with the same percentage of immigrants that some towns have in the UK. THIS MUST lead to tensions.

Solution? Stop pretending that there isn't a problem, there is. Some sources claim that Muslims will be a majority in the UK in 50 years (some claim 20). It did all seem rosy and cheery in the UK before percentages climbed; this will happen in the US also if nothing is done. Sharia law has been approved as legal in the UK, did you know that?

Solution? Stop pandering to politically correct thinking, send the military into the no go zones (they exist, yes they do), forbid the teaching of the Koran which is not a book of peace but a book of hate, prosecute the perpetrators of arranged marriages and female genital mutilation, and so on. If I go to Saudi will I be taking cases of whisky in my luggage? Nope I read about the place in advance.

If you are a Muslim, then you are a bad Muslim if you don't follow the Koran (which I have studied by the way, before you bring that up or start quoting the bible). 45% of Muslims in the UK believe that adulteresses deserve stoning to death, and that the Charlie Hebdo killings were justified. I don't have a solution, I don't want to turn back the hands of time. But in view of the Islam faith intolerantly imposing its values on the places they live in, things aren't going to turn out nicely, are they? Very difficult to be tolerant of intolerant peope,

I guess you think that 'cultural diversity' is an antidote to the world being a bleak place. Life is bloody hell for some native English people as they watch their neighbourhood being taken over. That's worse than bleakness.

[dragonfly94]

I once asked a black' activist' what she meant by racism her reply was 'it's anything we say it is' - does not give us a leg to stand on really that does it.