|
Post by topdog on Apr 21, 2005 7:01:47 GMT -5
Charlie mentioned there is covert racism against the colored folk here. That may be true, but I think black people are regarded with distrust here not because of racism, but because we don't want them leaving the board telling their friends that the Egyptians or Olmecs were black or some such thing. It's more about racial politics and preventing the spread of misinformation than racism itself in the case of the blacks here. It may be racist to think that blacks are more susceptible to this kind of outright misinformation, but we think so nonetheless. Thats downright ridiculous and a sorry excuse. I'm one of only a few blacks that post here and I only speaking for myself, have never made any claims to Egypt or Olmecs. There is plenty of misinformation here in my opinion and the blacks that do post here are not the ones spreading it. Thinking that all blacks are inherently 'Afrocentric' bent on claiming everything, instead of addressing specific points and topics is no excuse to have an anti-black attitude. Conversely, I'm not here to claim others civilizations and achievements I'm here to offer my insight as well as posting evidence to back it up. Based on that fact, no one should be treating me as some Afrocentrist trying to connnect myself with Egypt and other civilizations, since I have never made those claims, yet people like Alexandrian and Igu repeat that same ad-hominem argument in every debate. Addressing the individual person and the topic, not a perception of what you imagine someone to be, is the proper way to debate and discuss something. Thats nonsense Mike, be real. The N word is wrong just as it is wrong to call Jews the K word, why should blacks accept it and say the have no problem being a nigger? Thats just downright silly. When people call me the N word in debates, its usually done to distract from the topic to make me angry. Instead of closing my temper, or even worse, saying "I have no problem being a nigger," I just concentrate on the topic being discussed. It isn't an issue of reacting, the issue is debate and offensive racial slurs have no place in debates, especially the ones in this forum. Nigger is an offensive racial slur. A faggot is a bundle of sticks according to Websters, but if you called a homosexual a faggot he sure as heck will not be thinking about a bundle of sticks. It isn't the meaning Mike, its in the context of how those words are being used. Since 'nigger' means black to you, lets just say you replaced black with 'nigger' for everything you saw that was black in color, like shoes, a car, cat, or the midnight sky. Now you have words like 'the nigger cat', the nigger Mercedes, the nigger Stacy Adams shoes, the nigger-night sky. Now does any of that make any sense? It doesn't, thats why blacks should accept that term and say they're proud of being a nigger.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Apr 21, 2005 13:48:16 GMT -5
Sorry excuse or not, ridiculous or not, it's the simple ugly truth of the matter. Unless you have evidence suggesting the majority of the black posters who frequent race boards like Dodona are more likely to espouse the works of Coon rather than Diop. Nobody's saying that all the blacks who visit this board are going to be Afrocentrists, but it's much more likely than not. That's why there is distrust. I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying it's there.
Hey, I'm proud to be a honkey-tonk cracker. No problem with that term at all, because that is what I am and I have the wisdom to know that words are just words. It's the people who use them you can have a problem with. When you give in to their slurs, you're giving them the victory. Take back the word and make it your own and it will have no power over your emotions. Yes, I am an idealist and I speak from the heart and not the head much of the time, but that's how I feel about this.
|
|
|
Post by captainusa1 on Apr 21, 2005 19:12:21 GMT -5
Captain refer to QVP's posts for an instructional in the use of progressive as signfier of racial superiority. I see what you mean. It looks like another case of subtle word-hijacking.
|
|
|
Post by nordicyouth on Apr 21, 2005 19:28:20 GMT -5
Racism is an overrated term. The issue at hand is an individual's racial fixation. A person can have a racial fixation whether they are a skinhead that ignores non-Whites, or a White righteously flaunting miscegenation in the name of progressiveness.
Racial fixations can vary in duration, quantity, and quality.
It is incorrect to label such people 'racists,' as if they are a group. Racial fixation, and hate in general, is purely a private matter, despite consensus with other racists, etc.
As some have class fixation or sexual fixation, or a multiplicity of fixations, these cause reactions which can be coherent or contradictory. Fixations are based on fear(s)/insecurity(ies), which are unique to each person. Why should a self-loathing social climber that has sold his soul for class be considered any 'better' than a skinhead or an afrocentrist?
For inherent and environmental reasons, humans tend to have fears based in one or more areas. While disagreement or frustration with multiculturalism or immigration can be justified, hate against its by-products are fear-based.
When it's hate, it's about you, and no one else. Even if you have a point; if you can't calmly and cooly state your position without resorting to anger, then it's about you.
|
|
|
Post by vela on Apr 21, 2005 20:03:16 GMT -5
Racism is an overrated term. The issue at hand is an individual's racial fixation. A person can have a racial fixation whether they are a skinhead that ignores non-Whites, or a White righteously flaunting miscegenation in the name of progressiveness. Racial fixations can vary in duration, quantity, and quality. It is incorrect to label such people 'racists,' as if they are a group. Racial fixation, and hate in general, is purely a private matter, despite consensus with other racists, etc. As some have class fixation or sexual fixation, or a multiplicity of fixations, these cause reactions which can be coherent or contradictory. Fixations are based on fear(s)/insecurity(ies), which are unique to each person. Why should a self-loathing social climber that has sold his soul for class be considered any 'better' than a skinhead or an afrocentrist? For inherent and environmental reasons, humans tend to have fears based in one or more areas. While disagreement or frustration with multiculturalism or immigration can be justified, hate against its by-products are fear-based. When it's hate, it's about you, and no one else. Even if you have a point; if you can't calmly and cooly state your position without resorting to anger, then it's about you. This is an interesting point of view, about the individual's racial fixation. There are people who consider that there is such a thing as "race-consciousness" that amalgamates like minded individuals into groups that become almost like religions where there's active proselitizing and mutually interactive feedback that reinforces particular behaviours. But going back to the individual's fixation, what would then be the normal individual's evolution if it wasn't halted or fixed at a particular stage?
|
|
|
Post by vela on Apr 21, 2005 22:04:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by courtjester on Apr 21, 2005 22:04:44 GMT -5
"What does make me sad is that nobody comes to the defence of certain races/sub-races unless they are of that race. Let me explain. "
Um, well that is the crux of what racial bigotry is. They are not like me and I'm not like them so screw them. You can make up all kind of reasons, both irrational and scientific to justify your apathy. They are subhuman, violent, stupid, ugly, reproducing with them is not only unhygenic but also deadly to your own kind. Hence they diserve there abuse.
It's not so much racism itself but just human selfishness, egotism and ethnocenticity. Wanting to judge everything by your own peoples standards.
More philosophy, less pseudoscience is needed here.
|
|
|
Post by SensoUnico on Apr 22, 2005 0:13:25 GMT -5
hanan, the finding of some groups unattractive is not prejudice or racism, it is what you find attractive. No-one has to justify their likes or dislikes as far as attraction. I am a male, I am not attracted to other males. So, does that mean I am homophobic. I am not religious and would not really be happy with someone who was of whatever religion. Does that mean I am a bigot against the religious. Everyone is entitled to what makes them happy when it does not affect anyone else detrimentally. It is the same with opinions. Everyone can think what they like. Big Brother is still mostly fictional. Speaking out one's opinions is a different matter. However, in a free society speaking out is allowed to a certain extent. Expressing racism is not cool as you say, but badgering people, brainwashing people and punishing people for expressing themselves is somewhat totalitarian and contrary to democratic principles which I contend is happening today. And what does this suppression do but make racism and other forms of prejudice fester behind closed doors and in secret. Better to let one's dirty washing hang for all to see.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Apr 22, 2005 10:16:27 GMT -5
I just love reading liberal Whites endlessly talking about sniveling little racist Asians... endless articles. Yes, we're the most racist. Look at all the crimes against humanity by us. There are some truths to them but it's lost all perspective. When they want to bring an example, it's always sniveling little Asians. Are Arabs not racists, or Indians, or Africans, or Europeans? It's lame to set us as examples of racists when we did not enslave people based on race, nor commit genocides, nor set up colonial institutions based on racial hierarchy. I didn't understand the article wanted to say Asians are more racist than Europeans. I think it says "The dominant race in a society, whether white or otherwise, rarely admits to its own racism." thus, as the Europeans are (or think they are) the topdogs in World's races pecking order, they are the less prone to aknowledge/talk honestly abuot their racist feelings. It says Asians are more "sincere" on the subject. The main fault with the article is that the author ignores that dominant ethnic groups used to express their racism quite freely in history, and that anti racism as we know it is a VERY recent movement.
|
|
|
Post by vela on Apr 22, 2005 11:42:15 GMT -5
Yes, you are right. It's just that I've read too many of these articles (where they use Asians, especially Chinese) as racist examples. I started to notice they never use Indians, Arabs, Portuguese, and so on and so on. It plays into that "sniveling little Asian racist" stereotype you see in movies and in social commentaries about racist Asian countries. I must say that I haven't noticed what you say about frequently using Asians as racist examples. In any case if Jaques was indirectly accusing the Asians of something it would be of gender discrimination. I don't know why but the article reminded me of a popular old rock & roll song by the Who:
|
|
|
Post by hanan on Apr 22, 2005 12:02:44 GMT -5
Looks like a pattern is developing:
Person A: What, me, no, I'm not racist. I'm just expressing my preferences. What's wrong with that? I'm also highly scientific. Let me show you a pie chart or table illustrating how certain skull shapes are associated with high IQ. Oh, did I mention I happen to have the skull shape associated with the highest of IQs? Well, I do, but that's not important because I am always very objective.
Person B: I have that skull shape associated with low IQs and my IQ exceeds that of genius. Also, let me tell you about my great culture and history- all of which will make you very envious. In addition, I will throw in a table or pie chart of my own. He he, and my references are more credible than yours, of course!
Person C: I am unbiased and person A is correct. Expert XYZ says so. Now, I will go into great detail into what facial features are primitive. In case you don't know what I mean by primitive I will explain in scientific terms: monkey-like.
Person B: This is highly insulting so I will show you some beautiful women (models) from my race/sub-race. You will admit they are the most beautiful women in the world because well, they are.
Person A: Those women are ugly and unrepresentative. Anyone can see that. You are getting defensive for no reason. Person C would agree here. Your primitive emotions are making you delusional. I have had enough of arguing with non-rational types. And I would tell you of how my people are the most beautiful and of how my culture is most superior, but really, what is the point since you only see things from your point of view.
|
|
Hallam
Junior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by Hallam on Apr 22, 2005 12:30:52 GMT -5
I just love reading liberal Whites endlessly talking about sniveling little racist Asians... endless articles. Yes, we're the most racist. Look at all the crimes against humanity by us. There are some truths to them but it's lost all perspective. When they want to bring an example, it's always sniveling little Asians. Are Arabs not racists, or Indians, or Africans, or Europeans? It's lame to set us as examples of racists when we did not enslave people based on race, nor commit genocides, nor set up colonial institutions based on racial hierarchy. Martin Jacques did imply in another article that Asian were the most racist. Of course, he discredited himself by using as his only evidence, postings from an internet discussion forum.
|
|
|
Post by vela on Apr 22, 2005 12:41:28 GMT -5
Looks like a pattern is developing: Person A: What, me, no, I'm not racist. I'm just expressing my preferences. What's wrong with that? I'm also highly scientific. Let me show you a pie chart or table illustrating how certain skull shapes are associated with high IQ. Oh, did I mention I happen to have the skull shape associated with the highest of IQs? Well, I do, but that's not important because I am always very objective. Person B: I have that skull shape associated with low IQs and my IQ exceeds that of genius. Also, let me tell you about my great culture and history- all of which will make you very envious. In addition, I will throw in a table or pie chart of my own. He he, and my references are more credible than yours, of course! Person C: I am unbiased and person A is correct. Expert XYZ says so. Now, I will go into great detail into what facial features are primitive. In case you don't know what I mean by primitive I will explain in scientific terms: monkey-like. Person B: This is highly insulting so I will show you some beautiful women (models) from my race/sub-race. You will admit they are the most beautiful women in the world because well, they are. Person A: Those women are ugly and unrepresentative. Anyone can see that. You are getting defensive for no reason. Person C would agree here. Your primitive emotions are making you delusional. I have had enough of arguing with non-rational types. And I would tell you of how my people are the most beautiful and of how my culture is most superior, but really, what is the point since you only see things from your point of view. LOL. I get the picture!
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Apr 22, 2005 13:56:26 GMT -5
You're right. A word is only dangerous when you let it to be. However, some sort of civility should be kept, even if it is to prevent awkwardness. For example, in a discussion between you and me, you referred to Chinese as Chinaman. I wasn't offended by it, but it just makes the conversation strange and distracting, like as if we're talking and suddenly a stripper moons us and leaves. "What was that about?" ... ya know? Because the word is more humorous than "Chinese man" and shows a kind of kinship and affection, I think. I get the same humble feeling when I call myself a honkey. Plus, is there anything really offensive about being called a man of China? I feel the same way about "Jap." Isn't that just shortening Japanese? Why should that abbreviation be more offensive than "Brit" as in British is? And granted, "nigger" isn't a very funny word because it has a long history of negative use, but take back the language, take back the origins of the word. Nigger just means black in the end and if you're a black person, you should be proud to be black. I don't think you should go around calling people "niggers" or anything like that. I'm just saying we should all understand that words are words and it is the idea, the context behind the words that makes them offensive or not. Language changes, words do too. The only way to remove disparaging terms is to either ban them (which of course is impossible to enforce) or change their meaning into something that doesn't turn heads anymore. This is what happened with the Slavs. Literally, we're calling these people slaves. Should we suddenly change their name? Of course not. It no longer implies anything derogatory. If Slav can change into something with no negative connotation, then nigger can, too. Like I said, I'm idealistic.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Apr 22, 2005 15:02:38 GMT -5
I wasn't offended... That is my point actually. You have to recognize the context. Certain contexts require certain tact. For example, you can't call someone honkey if you are wearing a suit and he is the client you are meeting for the first time. Fo sho. I don't want anybody think it's okay to call their boss a nigger or a cracker. I'm just saying we should realize that "bad" words in themselves are not evil, just the thoughts behind them. Also, Slav was first and slave was second. Slave was derived from Slav, not the other way around. My bad, you're right about that. Yeah, I remember now that the words slave is derived from was originally the Greco-Latin ethnic name of the Slavs. Same idea, nonetheless.
|
|