View Full Version : Can only whites be racist?
lorraine_2406
10-Mar-07, 21:32
Email I got. Obv. applicable to US but the latest furore over the car vandal getting 'beaten up' by a copper makes me think it's relevant here too.
Proud To Be White
Someone finally said it.
How many are actually paying attention to this?
There are African Americans, Mexican Americans,
Asian Americans, Arab Americans, Native Americans, etc.
And then there are just Americans.
You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction.
You Call me "White boy," "Cracker," "Honkey,"
"Whitey," "Caveman" . And that's OK.
But when I call you, Nigger, Kike, Towel head,
Sand-nigger, camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or Chink .
You call me a racist.
You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you,
So why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?
You have the United Negro College Fund. You have
Martin Luther King Day. You have
Black History Month.
You have Cesar Chavez Day. You have Yom Hashoah. You
Have Ma'uled Al-Nabi. You have the NAACP.
You have BET.
If we had WET (White Entertainment Television)
We'd be racists.
If we had a White Pride Day . You would call us racists.
If we had White History Month . We'd be racists.
If we had any organization for only whites to "advance" OUR
lives
We'd be racists.
We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black
Chamber of Commerce, and then we just have the plain
Chamber of Commerce.
Wonder who pays for that?
If we had a college fund that only gave white students
Scholarships
You know we'd be racists.
There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in
The US , yet if there were "White colleges"
THAT would be a racist college.
In the Million Man March, you believed that you were
Marching for your race and rights. If we marched for our
Race and rights,
You would call us racists.
You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange,
And you're not afraid to announce it. But when we
Announce our white pride .
You call us racists.
You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us. But, when a
White police officer shoots a black gang member or beats
Up a black drug-dealer running from the law and posing
A threat to society you call him a racist.
I am proud.
But, you call me a racist.
Why is it that only whites can be racists?
Don't think so. What about that poor boy Kriss Donald that got murdered?
umm often thought this myself.. and im one of the least racist people around! *grins*
it has gotten silly now with the pc police..
its actually a bad thing to be white!
or should i say caucasion.. as it dosent actually say white on anything!
oh well.. im happy being who i am.. i know im a mongrel.. of mixed heritage..
(yes im blonde fair and blue eyed) but no one else in my family is! *grins*
great granny was blackfoot indian.. and who knows what else is mixed up in there.
rockchick
10-Mar-07, 21:48
Unfortunately, until someone can look at an posting like this...and be able to say "but that's not an issue"...it IS an issue!
On one hand, I think any job should go to the best qualified applicant, no matter whether they are male/female, or white/black/purple/red etc.
but, as a professional female...I am witness to many situations where simply having a *Y* chromosome is an advantage. There is a problem! I know too many employers that won't hire women of child-bearing age, simply because they want to avoid the problems of maternity issues. Even if they are equally as capable as athe males who are applying for the same job.
I don't believe in discrimination...but until people are FORCED to see minorities as equals, I don't see difficulties with giving minorities an advantage.
Blazing Sporrans
10-Mar-07, 22:05
I don't believe in discrimination...but until people are FORCED to see minorities as equals, I don't see difficulties with giving minorities an advantage.
I wholeheartedly agree.
The unfortunate thing about the original post here (albeit lorraine is only posting something she's received from another source and isn't the author) is the stereotypical and continuous use of the word 'You'. You'd imagine that all ethnic minorities must cry 'racist' according to this offensive article, and that all non-whites are car-jacking, gun-toting criminals.
I couldn't care less what someone else's colour, sex, creed (or any other grouping that can be imagined) is. I treat everyone as an equal and I demand to be treated as an equal too. Not a hard ethos to live one's life by.
j4bberw0ck
10-Mar-07, 22:34
I know too many employers that won't hire women of child-bearing age, simply because they want to avoid the problems of maternity issues. Even if they are equally as capable as athe males who are applying for the same job.
An economist would say that that's because the government has forced so many requirements on employers, with maternity leave, extended maternity leave, and having to allow time off for child sickness and so on; it's only the public sector that can afford to select equally since they don't have to worry about the cost of hiring people to cover while still paying for an employee who isn't there - it's just included in the annual budget as a contingency. And there aren't any demands on the public sector to show a profit.
The equality will come with paternity leave regulations, when young men of child-creating age may well find it more difficult to get jobs, too. Perhaps employers will have to look more to those other under-represented, discriminated against groups, the middle-aged and elderly? Better educated, more motivated, better people skills, and they don't believe the world owes them a living, by and large.
I don't believe in discrimination...but until people are FORCED to see minorities as equals, I don't see difficulties with giving minorities an advantage.
Would you hire less well qualified / skilled people because they're of a minority group?
Just thinking out loud, as it were :lol:
rockchick
10-Mar-07, 22:52
Would you hire less well qualified / skilled people because they're of a minority group?
Just thinking out loud, as it were :lol:
Hate to break it to you, but it's incredibly humiliating proving to a prospective employer that you have no desire to have children in the near future. No woman should have to go through that...just as no man has to go through it. Would you like to have to convince your boss that you've had a vasectomy, just so that you would be considered on an equal basis for a particular job??? Its awful
j4bberw0ck
10-Mar-07, 23:14
No employer or prospective employer may ask about your intentions for children, anyway, as merely asking the question may constitute discrimination - whether you're male or female. If they're crass enough to ask it, they're crass enough to be lied to with a clear conscience.
But my point wasn't a defence of discrimination against women or men. It was about the futility of governments passing simplistic laws to try to stamp out discrimination; targeting it is like squeezing a balloon half full of water in your fist. The water goes somewhere else where the balloon isn't being squeezed - in other words the problem changes shape and becomes a different but related one.
Whenever governments get involved in something to try to make it work better, they inevitably end up making it worse.
Think NHS.
rockchick
10-Mar-07, 23:20
No employer or prospective employer may ask about your intentions for children, anyway, as merely asking the question may constitute discrimination - whether you're male or female. If they're crass enough to ask it, they're crass enough to be lied to with a clear conscience.
But my point wasn't a defence of discrimination against women or men. It was about the futility of governments passing simplistic laws to try to stamp out discrimination; targeting it is like squeezing a balloon half full of water in your fist. The water goes somewhere else where the balloon isn't being squeezed - in other words the problem changes shape and becomes a different but related one.
Whenever governments get involved in something to try to make it work better, they inevitably end up making it worse.
Think NHS.
Well, they do. I was asked quite point-blanketely whether I was going to have a family in the future. As my family is quite finished, I was able to give them the answer they were looking for, but other women of my age/experience wouldn't have been able to do the same. And it would have been unthinkable for a man to be asked the same questions.
Yes, I know those questions are against the law. In Canada its against the law to ask a woman whether she's married, or her age...go figure. They can check your fingers to see if you're wearing a ring or not. Point is, that discrimination does still occur and not to the benefit of the minority.
j4bberw0ck
10-Mar-07, 23:25
Point is, that discrimination does still occur and not to the benefit of the minority.
Which was exactly what the balloon analogy was about [para]
Blazing Sporrans
10-Mar-07, 23:38
Interesting points jabber and rockchick, however I feel that the argument over gender discrimination deflects the attention from the original post which was entirely about racism. The author might have been trying to make a well-intentioned point, however the way in which the argument is presented fills me with nothing short of disgust and despair. [disgust]
Jeemag_USA
10-Mar-07, 23:49
There are some very valid points in that passage, they forgot to mention Black Expo, there is no white Expo, thats someting that always bothered me in the states.
Having lived in the US for some considerable time now, it should be pointed out the black people in general do have different senses of humor, taste in music and fashion, so when it comes to things like BET I can understand that. BET was a back lash to TV and FIlm being totally white dominated in the USA, you can even look at people like Ricardo Montalban who set up a hispanic actors union because hispanics were being typecast into rolls demeaning their soicety, this is very true and something that can easily be researched and you can go into black people in cinema, they were usually the first people to be killed off in an action or thriller flick and from the early days of cinema they were typecast into rolls of either subservience or crime. If you look at programs in the US like COPS, they are always chasing down blacks or hispanics mostly, but it has already been proven over here that in the areas where COPS is filmed there are as many serious crimes perpetrated by whites as any other minority, in fact it is more. So these kind of things are backlashes to a white run media which concentrates on what they feel is normal by making programming that disproportinatley represents minorities. The one thing I really do dislike about BET in the USA, is they bleep out the word "nigga" even though it is a common word for black people to refer to each other buy in certain circles. I say certain circles because mostly all black people I know do not use the word "nigga".
I watched a very good documentary about R&B and Rap recently where they went into great detail to show young up and coming rappers exactly who was running the industry, who had the final say on what was played and what was not, and of course it was white poeple in suits that had the say. Unless your music involves degrading w0omen as bitches, talking about guns, gangs and crime, your unlikely to get signed. Laugh at that if you wish, but its true, the music industry is trying to keep blak artists pigeon holed into being something which is distasteful to most common white folks, all blacks are criminal gangsters who like to mistreat women. This is what is happening within the music industry in the US, fact.
One glaring mistake in that passage is about Martin Luther King. If there is anyone in the History of the USA who deserves a day named after him, thewn he is the man, anyone who knows anything about will know why I say that. Martin Luther King fought for a lot of rights for African American people, but he also fought to bring all races togheter in love an peace and tried extremely hard to get everyone on the same page, he did this out of love and he was murdered as a result of that. I would give him his own day before Abe Lincoln or any other president or american figure of note, he IS without a doubt the most deserving, and he is one of the most important historic figures in the world.
But anyhoo, there are racists in every country in every color and every religion, to think otherwise is naive. What is very unclear from the person who wrote the passage is this, are they proud to be a human being, or just proud to be white, if your just proud to be white then your bringing yourself down to a level as low as any other racist, it would be more noble to rise above that and not consider color of any importance whatsoever. From my experience of white demonstrations that I have witnessed myself, they are mostly offensive, I have seen Nazi rallies downtown in the city of Indianapolis and they hurl abuse at any race or color other than themselves, the Aryan Brotherhood are no different and neither are the KKK or White Power. I have never seen any evidence of a group of white poeple who have a demonstration and just get up and say well look, we are white and we like that and peace out and so on. Its always aggressive in my experience.
What you see happening within Black communities is a direct result of oppresion they have witnessed against their own communities. The Ghettos are the way they are for a reason and I will not go into that in detail but lets suffice to say for decades and centuries people of certain races have been encouraged to live in certain parts of towns, when they tried to stetch out and live in better parts of town they usually got some kind of threat or ugliness. These are repercussions and its natural. I feel the person who wrote the above passage never really took time to understand why the things he or she is complaining about were created?
In a recent issue of a magazine published here in Indiana, there was a photograph of a party that was being held not too much more than fifty years ago, it was a cocktail party held outdoors, the highlight of that party was two alleged negro criminals hanging from a tree, all beneath them were people clinking glasses and sharing drinks and having a good old knees up. That is not too far back in time and many of the relatives of those two young men are still alive and not that old. It was one of the most gruesome things I have ever seen.
So to understand why things are the way they are today, you have to study the behaviours that caused it, and that can take a lifetime. Its up to all people in all races to realise we will not get anywhere harboring grudges or hate for anyone. Whining about your own race will not achieve anything.
Don't think so. What about that poor boy Kriss Donald that got murdered?There was an immediate rush by the good Councillors and the Police in Glasgow to fall over themselves to rush out a statement saying that the murder wasn't racist even though the fact was blatantly obvious from the start.
I understand what they were trying to prevent from happening but they could at least have tried to find something to say that was vaguely credible.
Whilst I understand some of the sentiments expressed in the email lorraine received even though the greater part of it is gross exaggeration, but there again, such wild exaggerations are not all one sided the moment Racism is mentioned.
Jeemag, Martin Luther King Day, a Public Holiday in the US according to my calendar, was on 15 January this year.
Personally I think that there should be a Malcolm X Day in preference. With respect to Racist Attitudes I would recommend his Autobiography as a very good source of information.
Martin Luther King was given all the praise and publicity because the was the face of the Civil Rights Movement that white politicians and the media were happy to identify with, Malcolm X was definitely not, he certainly did not believe in living in a Dream World.
A very brief description of his life can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4277833.stm
It makes interesting reading even though it is a slightly sanitised version which is far less forthright than his own description of some of the groups he was associated with.
Jeemag, I agree whole heartedly with your last sentence but I suspect not in the way it was intended to be interpreted. the racial whining also cuts both ways.
Jeemag_USA
11-Mar-07, 07:58
There was an immediate rush by the good Councillors and the Police in Glasgow to fall over themselves to rush out a statement saying that the murder wasn't racist even though the fact was blatantly obvious from the start.
I understand what they were trying to prevent from happening but they could at least have tried to find something to say that was vaguely credible.
Whilst I understand some of the sentiments expressed in the email lorraine received even though the greater part of it is gross exaggeration, but there again, such wild exaggerations are not all one sided the moment Racism is mentioned.
Jeemag, Martin Luther King Day, a Public Holiday in the US according to my calendar, was on 15 January this year.
Personally I think that there should be a Malcolm X Day in preference. With respect to Racist Attitudes I would recommend his Autobiography as a very good source of information.
Martin Luther King was given all the praise and publicity because the was the face of the Civil Rights Movement that white politicians and the media were happy to identify with, Malcolm X was definitely not, he certainly did not believe in living in a Dream World.
A very brief description of his life can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4277833.stm
It makes interesting reading even though it is a slightly sanitised version which is far less forthright than his own description of some of the groups he was associated with.
Jeemag, I agree whole heartedly with your last sentence but I suspect not in the way it was intended to be interpreted. the racial whining also cuts both ways.
Well I am not going down that road with you, to use the words Dream World in reference to MLK is ridiculous, just because he said "I have a dream" does not mean he wanted to live in a dream world. I know plenty about Malcolm X, certainly not a person worthy of a public holiday, the Nobel Peace Prize is not awarded by the United States, and I don't recall a militant like Malcolm X ever getting one. MLK had the same belief and dream as that of Mahatma Gandhi, true peace can only be achieved through non violence and non violent protest. Malcolm X was always heading in the wrong direction unfortunately. MLK did a hell of a lot to bring around desegregation, long before his famous speech, Malcolm X whether he was trying to or not did more to stir hatred and trouble than anything else, I am not a follower of radical militants.
And who hands out the Nobel Prizes? Why, middle calss white men of course.
Malcolm X eventually saw that Black Power militancy was not the way forward and that is why the Black Panthers executed him.
The reason he is portrayed as being nothing but a proponent of violence is that he was not the sort of person who would suck up to the "powers that be".
Of course, nobody likes to remember that most Blacks, until his death, considered Martin Luther King an “Uncle Tom”. That bit has been conveniently ‘airbrushed’ out of his story.
Anybody remember the two Black American Athletes who were sent home from the Olympics in disgrace for standing on the podium with their heads bowed, giving the Black power salute during the playing of the American National Anthem. Or has that been conveniently forgotten?
Since it is 2007, let us not forget that the Africans took Europeans as slaves as well as vica versa.
The original question was:
Can only whites be racist?
Racism affects all societies and is prevalent to a great degree in Africa but that does not make it right for the white community or any other t be racist. The racist acts of ono-whites are as common as that by whites.
Though on a slightly different but maybe related topic let us not forget that while the white traders of Brtain and America had a great responsibility for the dreadful goings on in the slave trade African and Arab tribal groups were often instrumental in capturing their fellow countrymen for the white slave traders.
Unfortunately, racism, sectarianism, genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc are not the preserve of one group or one nation.
The original question was:
Can only whites be racist?
Unfortunately, racism, sectarianism, genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc are not the preserve of one group or one nation.
Racism and discrimination are part of being the Human Race. They will always be there regardless of PC Legislation.
Every race and creed has racism and discrimination within, and without, and whoever your God is, does not seem to help.
It will never stop, just like Child abuse. It is the nature of the beast.
Can only whites be racist
No, and to think otherwise would be extremely narrow minded.
Jeemag_USA
12-Mar-07, 02:26
And who hands out the Nobel Prizes? Why, middle calss white men of course.
Malcolm X eventually saw that Black Power militancy was not the way forward and that is why the Black Panthers executed him.
The reason he is portrayed as being nothing but a proponent of violence is that he was not the sort of person who would suck up to the "powers that be".
Of course, nobody likes to remember that most Blacks, until his death, considered Martin Luther King an “Uncle Tom”. That bit has been conveniently ‘airbrushed’ out of his story.
Anybody remember the two Black American Athletes who were sent home from the Olympics in disgrace for standing on the podium with their heads bowed, giving the Black power salute during the playing of the American National Anthem. Or has that been conveniently forgotten?
I know both sides of the story of both men, and as you seem to know a certian amount you will also know that there are many within the civil rights movement and the african american community who will openly say that a lot of "The Autobiography" was glorified and painted well by Haley, even members of Malcom X's family were not happy. So I tend to go on what a man has achieved and MLK had a similar ability as Gandhi, he knew when to use diplomacy, he knew when to suck in and when to blow out to his and his peoples best advantage, he knew when looking like a patsy would serve a purpose and he knew when to be bold and shout out, X did not have those skills. All great men need to understand sacrifice, sometimes you need to take a step down to make a step up. Thats why because of MLK there are many ammendments to the laws regarding race in this country, X did not achieve any lasting policy changes in US government. Malcom X gained a resurge in popularity during the early days of rap, when people like Public Enemy and Spike Lee gave him some creedence, but everybody grows up. The name Malcolm X is merely a whisper in most peoples memories here today, whereas MLK is honored by all races, creeds and colors in the same way Nelson Mandela is. Thats real achievement. What MLK has achieved is timeless and written in law and stone! And I guess we will have to agree to disagree. And regarding people being punished for doing stuff like the athletes, don't forget that all members of the nation of islam who took part in the March on Washington amongst their own people for something they thought was right were suspended for 90 days from their own religion, and at that time X was a prominent figure, wether the March was futile or government sanctioned or not, it was for African Americans to be sen and heard and they were punished by their own for it and Malcolm X supported it.
Martin Luther King was the "Acceptable Face" of the Civil Rights Movement which the US Government was only too willing to promote. After all, by using and promoting King and his ideas they could keep the lid on things.
It was only after his assassination and the numerous riots which followed that the Government realised that mouthing platitudes and hoping the problem would go away was not going to work that they actually got round to improving things.
Ghandi was no angel either. He did most of his negotiating not with the Last Viceroy himself but when he was in bed with his wife.
Martin Luther King and Ghandi are very similar, they were both the acceptable face of what was happening at the time and got all the glory.
As you say, Malcolm X , because he was an “inconvenience”, has become a foot note in the Story of the Civil Rights Movement. In effect he has been airbrushed out of the picture.
Similarly, Muhammed Jinnah, who founded Pakistan, and Jawaharlal Nehru who became India’s first Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, both contributed as much to India gaining Independence and Ghandi, yet both have similarly been sidelined for the same reason. They didn’t make “good copy” either.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.