Racism vs. Oversensitivity

[icecube]

http://www.timwise.org/2002/06/honky...everse-racism/

[strombad]

Originally Posted by icecube

http://www.timwise.org/2002/06/honky...everse-racism/

So "honky" isn't as bad as the n-word.

Riveting commentary.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by Hockey_Ninja

I don't get offended at all if someone calls me black. /thread.

Originally Posted by fotze

Ya, but you're white.

Originally Posted by Hockey_Ninja

No i'm not.

Just because you're a Ninja it doesn't mean you're black. That's racist.

[cancer man]

You have,Black,Yellow,Brown and Normal.
Then you have Oreo,Banana and Cappuccino and whatever other half breed mix out there.
In the end i find people that are not of the normal color to be the biggest racists.
I myself am a white ######.

[Montana Moe]

^ Idiocy knows no color.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by manwiches

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I love responses like this. "I don't have an intelligent rebuttal to your post, so I'm just going to call it garbage and act like that's a valid argument."

You're over complicating a very cut and dry issue. I called the articles bs because in my opinion racism is not exclusive to someone because they're in a position of power, have a more privileged social standing, have more wealth, etc.
I just can't wrap my head around the argument of A can call B a racist slur and it's considered racist but B can call A a racist slur and it's not. If you use racist slurs to cause hurt or to degrade someone it doesn't matter what skin colour you have, it's racist.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

You're over complicating a very cut and dry issue. I called the articles bs because in my opinion racism is not exclusive to someone because they're in a position of power, have a more privileged social standing, have more wealth, etc.
I just can't wrap my head around the argument of A can call B a racist slur and it's considered racist but B can call A a racist slur and it's not. If you use racist slurs to cause hurt or to degrade someone it doesn't matter what skin colour you have, it's racist.

I think the problem here is you think that racism is just one person calling someone a bad name or treating them poorly and seem to be entirely disregarding the systemic racism that impacts non-white people on a daily basis, even if they themselves don't realize it. The fact that you would almost never consider saying 'that white guy over there' means that by calling someone black as a means of identifying them, you are placing them firmly in the 'other' class.

Privilege is invisible to those who have it, so you can't really fault anyone for not realizing they have an advantage.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I think the problem here is you think that racism is just one person calling someone a bad name or treating them poorly and seem to be entirely disregarding the systemic racism that impacts non-white people on a daily basis, even if they themselves don't realize it. The fact that you would almost never consider saying 'that white guy over there' means that by calling someone black as a means of identifying them, you are placing them firmly in the 'other' class.

Privilege is invisible to those who have it, so you can't really fault anyone for not realizing they have an advantage.

Examples?

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I think the problem here is you think that racism is just one person calling someone a bad name or treating them poorly and seem to be entirely disregarding the systemic racism that impacts non-white people on a daily basis, even if they themselves don't realize it. The fact that you would almost never consider saying 'that white guy over there' means that by calling someone black as a means of identifying them, you are placing them firmly in the 'other' class.



Privilege is invisible to those who have it, so you can't really fault anyone for not realizing they have an advantage.

Uh, what? Have you never used descriptors?
You've never said "that girl over there" and pointed to a girl amongst a group of guys, "the red haired guy" and pointed to a red haired guy amongst a group of people with blonde/brown hair, "the girl with blue eyes" and pointed to the only blue eyed girl amongst a group of girls?

Using descriptors doesn't place people in different classes, that's ridiculous. You use descriptors when someone has a unique physical trait that makes them identifiable amongst a group. If there was a white guy in a group of black guys, you would say "that white guy over there."

The only reason you don't hear "that white guy over there" more often is because (being in NA) white guys are a majority, so it's generally not a unique descriptor. It has nothing to do with placing people in classes, that's daft.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Examples?

Predominately black schools/neighbourhoods have received less funding now and in the past, which puts kids from those schools/neighbourhoods at a disadvantage to graduate or be accepted into a non-black university. Even if the funding is/has been corrected, the impact is felt across generations.

For example, Bobby goes to a school that gives him virtually no chance to to university because the funding isn't there to give them the same chances that the 'white' schools have. That's a pretty obvious example.

However, Bobby's cousin goes to another school, where someone last year gave them the exact funding as the top rate schools in the country, but this cousin still lives in the same neighbourhood as Bobby and has the same friends. This environment that they grew up in discourages people from actively pursuing higher education, because none of their parents did it, their friends are all into things that don't really mesh with educational acheivement. Additionally, you don't want to be seen as turning your back on your roots.

You could add in things like Bobby's dad is way more likely to be in prison or have been in prison. Bobby is also more likely to be racially profiled by police and charged with something he didn't do.

Even if Bobby did get to University on a scholarship, he would face way more discrimination, either overt or simply perceived, from his peers and teachers unless he went to an all black university, since over 60% of the students are white. The curriculum is more likely to be presented in a way which is more understandable to a person with the background of a white person compared to a black person, and it would be far more likely to be taught by a white professor. All of which combine to make it far less likely that Bobby will even finish school, let alone excel in his classes and receive scholastic awards or prime job offers straight out of school.

White people don't need to think about this stuff.

Now, it is certainly far worse in the US due to various cultural and historical factors, but it happens in Canada as well with the Native population (residential schools, reserves, etc)

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by strombad

Uh, what? Have you never used descriptors?
You've never said "that girl over there" and pointed to a girl amongst a group of guys, "the red haired guy" and pointed to a red haired guy amongst a group of people with blonde/brown hair, "the girl with blue eyes" and pointed to the only blue eyed girl amongst a group of girls?

Using descriptors doesn't place people in different classes, that's ridiculous. You use descriptors when someone has a unique physical trait that makes them identifiable amongst a group. If there was a white guy in a group of black guys, you would say "that white guy over there."

The only reason you don't hear "that white guy over there" more often is because (being in NA) white guys are a majority, so it's generally not a unique descriptor. It has nothing to do with placing people in classes, that's daft.

Exactly, you are identifying them as 'the other' or a member of the minority. Some places that has good connotations, some places it has bad.

Of course it places people in classes, but we are so used to it that we don't see it. It is, in fact, invisible to us.

edit: Just to clarify, I don't mean to say that I think racism only exists against non-white people, as that was major subject in this thread. I certainly think that some non-white race are extremely racist against others. Japanese historial hatred of China comes to my mind as the primary example, but you can find many such examples throughout the world. I do, however, think that the racism that actually hurts people in the long term, which is the systematic kind, almost exclusively happens against non-whites in North America

Also, to further clarify, I think that you would have to be pretty sensitive to be offended by being called 'black' unless there is some kind of negative stereotype involved. Like, that black guy sure misses a lot of work, I wonder if his baby mama's are hounding him yet. I won't decide that it is justified for any particular person or not though, because I can't know what qualities they automatically assign to someone who they label as black.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Predominately black schools/neighbourhoods have received less funding now and in the past, which puts kids from those schools/neighbourhoods at a disadvantage to graduate or be accepted into a non-black university. Even if the funding is/has been corrected, the impact is felt across generations.

For example, Bobby goes to a school that gives him virtually no chance to to university because the funding isn't there to give them the same chances that the 'white' schools have. That's a pretty obvious example.

However, Bobby's cousin goes to another school, where someone last year gave them the exact funding as the top rate schools in the country, but this cousin still lives in the same neighbourhood as Bobby and has the same friends. This environment that they grew up in discourages people from actively pursuing higher education, because none of their parents did it, their friends are all into things that don't really mesh with educational acheivement. Additionally, you don't want to be seen as turning your back on your roots.

You could add in things like Bobby's dad is way more likely to be in prison or have been in prison. Bobby is also more likely to be racially profiled by police and charged with something he didn't do.

Even if Bobby did get to University on a scholarship, he would face way more discrimination, either overt or simply perceived, from his peers and teachers unless he went to an all black university, since over 60% of the students are white. The curriculum is more likely to be presented in a way which is more understandable to a person with the background of a white person compared to a black person, and it would be far more likely to be taught by a white professor. All of which combine to make it far less likely that Bobby will even finish school, let alone excel in his classes and receive scholastic awards or prime job offers straight out of school.

White people don't need to think about this stuff.

Now, it is certainly far worse in the US due to various cultural and historical factors, but it happens in Canada as well with the Native population (residential schools, reserves, etc)

So let me get this straight. "Bobby" is a victim of systematic racism because he chooses to hangout with friends and stick to his roots rather than pursue an education?

Your post is filled with assumptions. So in order to rectify the situation, what do you propose?

[FlamesAddiction]

How about anti-Semitism, which is really a just a specific form of racism? In Israel, Jews are at the top of the social hierarchy, so would committing a hateful act against Jews in Israel not be considered anti-Semitic behaviour by this definition?

Personally, I think it's ridiculous and offensive to use someone's heritage against them in this fashion. (i.e. to say whether or not a clear negative judgement based only on race should not be considered a racist act).

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

So let me get this straight. "Bobby" is a victim of systematic racism because he chooses to hangout with friends and stick to his roots rather than pursue an education?

Your post is filled with assumptions. So in order to rectify the situation, what do you propose?

Bobby is a victim of living in the hood, growing up with a bunch of kids who likely have less than stellar role models and going to schools that have less funding. All these factors contribute to him being less likely to attend post secondary education than his white counterpart.

It is still a choice he makes, but he has different inputs into that choice that are external to him, compared to what the white kid would. This is the lens at which he looks at life through.

I don't know which assumptions you are talking about, as I have taken a fairly common situation with fairly common external factors and lumped them all together. I don't think Bobby actually exists, but I am assuming that you can tell what I am referring to.

I have no idea what the solution is. Systematic racism is really, really hard to deal with. Might help to have more all black universities, or it might help to inundate these communities and schools with programs like after school sports etc, or male mentoring for kids of single mothers. It might help to give out free birth control at the corner so little Bobby doesn't get born because his mom couldn't afford condoms. These things are not my area of specialization, so I really can't comment with any authority. I could put you in touch with someone whose career has been spent working with people in these types of situations if you really would like to know though.

I am not proposing a solution, just acknowledging that the problem exists.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

How about anti-Semitism, which is really a just a specific form of racism? In Israel, Jews are at the top of the social hierarchy, so would committing a hateful act against Jews in Israel not be considered anti-Semitic behaviour by this definition?

Personally, I think it's ridiculous and offensive to use someone's heritage against them in this fashion. (i.e. to say whether or not a clear negative judgement based only on race should not be considered a racist act).

Of course it is antisemitism.

Not sure what you are trying to imply by this post, but I am guessing you are saying that racist things can still happen against the majority?

Of course they can. I don't really think anyone debated otherwise, but I might have missed a post or two.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Of course it is antisemitism.

Not sure what you are trying to imply by this post, but I am guessing you are saying that racist things can still happen against the majority?

Of course they can. I don't really think anyone debated otherwise, but I might have missed a post or two.

That is what is being debated if you read the links posted by icecube.

It states that a white person cannot be a victim of racism in Canada because they are at the top of the "hierarchy".

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Of course it is antisemitism.



Not sure what you are trying to imply by this post, but I am guessing you are saying that racist things can still happen against the majority?



Of course they can. I don't really think anyone debated otherwise, but I might have missed a post or two.

I'm really not sure WHAT you're arguing here. No offence, but you seem to be throwing an awful lot of words at the wall without saying too much of anything, which is likely why you have to repeatedly respond with "Of course that's true, who says it isn't?"

What exact point are you trying to make, in a sentence or two?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

That is what is being debated if you read the links posted by icecube.

It states that a white person cannot be a victim of racism in Canada because they are at the top of the "hierarchy".

I think you are misreading the article and are getting hung up on the word racism and your understanding of it.
This might explain how they are using the word and where your confusion is coming from.

I don't disagree with your definition being the common one, btw.

[QUOTE ]Racial Prejudice can be directed at white people (i.e. white people can't dance) but is not considered racism because of the systemic relationship of power.[\QUOTE]

[Bootsy]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Bobby is a victim of living in the hood, growing up with a bunch of kids who likely have less than stellar role models and going to schools that have less funding. All these factors contribute to him being less likely to attend post secondary education than his white counterpart.

It is still a choice he makes, but he has different inputs into that choice that are external to him, compared to what the white kid would. This is the lens at which he looks at life through.

I don't know which assumptions you are talking about, as I have taken a fairly common situation with fairly common external factors and lumped them all together. I don't think Bobby actually exists, but I am assuming that you can tell what I am referring to.

I have no idea what the solution is. Systematic racism is really, really hard to deal with. Might help to have more all black universities, or it might help to inundate these communities and schools with programs like after school sports etc, or male mentoring for kids of single mothers. It might help to give out free birth control at the corner so little Bobby doesn't get born because his mom couldn't afford condoms. These things are not my area of specialization, so I really can't comment with any authority. I could put you in touch with someone whose career has been spent working with people in these types of situations if you really would like to know though.

I am not proposing a solution, just acknowledging that the problem exists.

This entire example could just as easily apply to Billy Bob from a predominantly white trailer park. It's not a race problem it's a poverty problem.