Welcome to TalkBass, the Premier Bass Player Community and Information Source. Register a 100% Free Account to post and unlock tons of features.
Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by sandmangeck, Feb 18, 2014.
From a debate earlier on Facebook the majority ruled no. What is your opinion?
From a textbook point of view, no. However, people of all races can and do practice racial hostility to people of different races all the time.
Log in or Sign up to hide this ad and more.
Hey I'm not hating, but isn't it time to accept that some things created to combat inequality actually help to create it? So when is Asian history month? Anybody here a member of the NAAWP? Go to college with a United Semitic College Fund? Go to an all Indian university? Seen a commercial lately for a Persian only dating site? OH, those things would be illegal, that's right. But they all exist for African Americans. Products of the past as a way to try and make bigotry and racism disappear. Now it works in reverse. It's illegal to form a private group exclusive to any ethnic group, except one. Meh, this thread's getting closed...
No, racism is not reasonable in any regard. Logistically, it would seem there is plenty of racism thrown at white people.
Whatever your point is, you just invalidated it by your choice of source.
The link is just showing that from the sample taken from Twitter, 48% of the racial slurs were directed towards white people.
My point is white people are attacked with racism plenty enough.
I'm not quite sure what "logistically reasonable" is supposed to mean.
Racism isn't reasonable in any scenario.
LOL yes I suppose the Daily Mail isn't the best source.
What, exactly, would make white people the exception to the rule of being treated with racial bias/discrimination/racism?
I, as a caucasian, have definitely been on the receiving end of racism from people of other ethic and racial backgrounds. What makes that so hard to believe?
Before I left America, the new norm/politically correct way to refer to black people was/is "African-American". Other than not all people with a dark complexion are actually originally from Africa, so calling them African-American may not be correct, I have no issues or problems with that. But, I have to ask, then, why is it still the norm/politically correct to call white people, "white people", rather than "European-American" or some such other geographically specific title?
I will give the 'life'' of this thread 2 days, then it's closed
I'm posting now to say I won't post in this thread again, so when the mods do a sweep to see who to hit, I'll be all squeaky clean.
Yup, I'm out too. Racism sucks.
OK, I think I understand what the OP is trying to ask... my son and daughter had a similar debate about sexism, where she was asserting that sexism against men is impossible. The reasoning (which I gather she picked up from some website or blog) is that even if a person were prejudiced against a man for his sex, male privilege is so systemically entrenched that such prejudice from an individual would not materially affect anything. I can imagine the OP's facebook friends made some similar argument, that even if white people get called racial epithets by minorities, white privilege is so entrenched that it doesn't do any substantive harm to them.
There isn't a NAAWP or White History Month because there is no need for them. There's no danger of white people getting erased from the history books, whereas minorities have had to struggle to get themselves included. The NAACP was founded in the "nadir" years of Jim Crow when southern whites would treat a lynching as a public celebration - it's rather chilling to see pictures from the era (1890-1920) with smiling white people enjoying a picnic while the tortured corpse of a black man hangs from a tree branch behind them. It was the NAACP that first drew the world's attention to that, and finally turned pride in lynchings to shame and embarrassment and eventually ended the practice altogether.
So I don't complain about organizations and efforts to promote awareness and protect the rights of minorities. Nevertheless, at the end of the day I also don't believe these arguments that there is "no such thing" as "reverse" racism against whites or sexism against men. It's a much smaller social issue, to be sure, but it can still exist and can even have an impact on people in certain corners of society. In academia, for instance, there's reason for some fairly widespread suspicion that universities use "soft" departments like the humanities for "diversity" hires, pumping up their statistics for minority and female hiring to look good, while keeping "hard" departments like engineering and business male and white. If so (whether it's a conscious or unconscious practice), it cuts both ways; the traditionally underprivileged may have a harder time breaking into a "hard" department, but also a white male, all else being equal, may find himself the second choice to a "diversity" candidate in the "soft" departments.
There was a department meeting at one school I used to teach at where there was a search coming up, and a point in the department's policies came under discussion. The policy was something to the effect that, along with seeking the most qualified candidate, the department would do whatever it could to encourage the hiring of women. In practice, it meant that with two equally qualified candidates, preference would go to hiring a woman. This was a policy that had been in place for a decade or two, since the 80s or 90s, in order to promote gender equality. It came under discussion because, in the 21st century, the department was about 2/3 female and it was asked whether such a policy was still necessary. The vote, however, was to leave it as is and continue the preference for hiring women over equally qualified men.
Interestingly enough, I usually would also not respond to this type of question, online. Face to face is another matter.
That being said, not wanting to paint the wrong picture, I, too, will post nothing else.
racism is defined as treating someone differently based upon there race.
Was that the sound of Bawana Rik's head exploding?
Racism originates in the primary brain.
Difference is not under control and thus potentially threatening.
It doesn't make logic in today's world, toward black white or green.
I don't see where logistics come into it, but never mind.
In theory, you can direct racial slurs towards white people. However, much of what I see reported as anti-white racism is usually an attempt to give other races an equal social status and set of rights that white people freely enjoy. White people enjoy such an overbearing hegemony over most of the cultures in which they reside that 'white racism' and 'black racism' describe, in my opinion, completely different concepts. Racism against black people comprises more the underhand and systematic discrimination that keeps them under-represented in anything other than minimal-wage industries with a few key (that white people will take to be 'many') exceptions.
To use a different example, when discussions arose about gay marriage in the UK, I heard tonnes of people say "but what about the rights of straight people? Who is looking out for us?". When you are at the top of the peak it is difficult to see that others enjoy fewer rights. Somehow granting a minority some more rights should be accompanied by giving the majority even more rights, to keep the balance equal.
If you live in Europe or the US, you live in a society that is overwhelmingly shaped by white people, with a white history, a white political system, a white economic system, a white justice system and a white-centric definition of 'culture' (as thin on the ground as that may be, in places). Some black kids may call you 'cracker' in passing, but it is not the same phenomenon at all.
I used the wrong word. I apologize.
Separate names with a comma.