Who can be a racist?

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Originally posted by Cynon
I also disagree with your use of history to support part of your argument. There is no doubt in my mind and in most other people who study history that white people called black people (especially during times of slavery) names like "black boy" as well as many, far worse names. This is proven in written records, which have become available over time, due to their recent creation.

You don't need to pore over the "written records," recently created or otherwise. I remember seeing drinking fountains labeled "white" and "colored." Interracial marriage was illegal within my lifetime, as were "may be sold to whites only" provisions within house deeds.

When I say that people are ignoring the history, I don't mean that they've failed to study ancient dusty texts. I mean that they've taken single moments and looked at them in isolation -- as if they were still photographs -- and totally ignored the context. That context could be something that happened two hundred years ago, or something that happened forty years ago, or something that happened last week, or something that happened 30 seconds ago.

But your idea of how often it has occurred does puzzle me. The reason for this is because no one knows how often offensive terms have been used towards a race. There could be just as many or more times in history when the white race has been called something offensive. For example if you look into a lot of oriental history we have records from the "middle kingdom" China that show Chinese officials/civilians calling white people and other known societies outside of China barbarians

You seem to be arguing that the tension between blacks and whites in the United States is not the only type of racial or ethnic tension that has ever occurred, which is obvious, but how is that relevant to what we're talking about here?

In addition many ancient African kingdoms who were based around the use of merchants and trade such as the wealthy and powerful kingdom of Ghana, had a great deal of contact with other races in there trading, which included both Muslim and Christian civilizations. As a result we can also expect that racial tensions and offensive remarks also transcribed between these nations, because it's only human nature to fear/hate that what we don't fully know or understand. These are just two of hundreds (probably thousands) of situations in history that would disagree with your assumption that black people have received the most racial remarks.

I'm talking about the United States. About things within the last couple of hundred years, about things within living memory, and about things that still go on right at this very moment.

Unfortunately we have little proof to support or deny your claim because we don't have a great deal of written records from the Ghana’s and other ancient kingdoms. This however does not mean that it did not occur, in fact it would be hard for racial tensions not to occur between all races because it’s human nature. So in short your argument on how often offensive remarks are made towards a race by another, really is not something you can validate because we don't currently have a full records of racial tension of the past but really just a modern one.

]I'm sure my Germanic ancestors probably had similar feelings during and after there bondage by the Romans. This however I don't feel is an excuse for one race to still sling racial slurs at another and feel it's ok, because it doesn’t help relieve tension between the two groups but instead heightens it.

If your Germanic ancestors were still bitter towards the Romans while their bondage was almost within living memory, would that bitterness be just as blameworthy as the hostility the Romans demonstrated towards them, would you think the motivation was exactly the same? If the Romans, after freeing your Germanic ancestors, had systematically excluded them from most areas of life, only allowing them to live in certain (not-so-hot) places, only allowing them to take certain (not-so-hot) jobs, would the hostility that arose between the two at that time be exactly symmetrical? If the Romans published books saying they had scientific proof that Germanics were genetically inferior to Romans, would the hostility your ancestors felt at the time the books were published be exactly the same as the hostility motivating the writers and publishers of those books? (Take a look at "The Bell Curve," if you don't know what I'm referring to here -- you won't have to look in the "ancient history" section of the bookstore to find it.)

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Here's a question for those of you who think there is exact symmetry:

David Duke, as I mentioned earlier, is quite passionate in proclaiming that he is not a racist. In defense of that claim, he points to black separatists. He says that they, just like him, believe the races should not mix. He says this proves he is not acting out of a belief that whites are superior to blacks, which would be racist if that was in fact what he believed -- but he says that's not what he believes, that instead he is simply recognizing a fundamental truth about the nature of the world.

Is this a good argument? Why or why not?

[vania]

Bad argument. I think that, no matter how someone justifies it, advocating the separation of blacks and whites (no matter which group is the one lobbying for it), is a form of racism. Period. If there were no inherent and underlying racist feelings there, why the need for separation??

v.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

"Well, they make good coworkers, but I wouldn't want my daughter marrying one of 'em."

Considering my hubby's black and I'm not, to me DD and the separatists are undeniably racist. And what is their response to biracial children?

mj

[realtraveller]

No matter what Duke says, both white separatists and black separatists are equally racist. Both feel that their race and/or their culture will be somehow polluted by racial mixing, which is by my definition, inherently racist thinking.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

You all seem to be assuming that the motivations are the same on both ends. That's the claim that David Duke made, a claim that forms the basis of his argument. But is it a fact?

David Duke's motivation is to keep the "bloodlines" of the races "pure."

Is it possible that the motivations of the black separatists are different, that their motivation is that they feel they live in a culture where the odds are stacked against them and want to create an envrionment they can live in where that is not the case, and that it has nothing to do with racial "purity" at all?

Most Canadians would not want to see Canada become part of the United States, but to say their motivation is that they don't want the purity of their Canadian bloodlines diluted and contaminated by interbreeding with the American race, would be nonsensical.

Is it possible that the black separatists' motivation is closer to the Canadians' than to what David Duke claims that it is?

If so, what happens to his argument?

[Cynon]

Originally posted by AuntieEmma


You don't need to pore over the "written records," recently created or otherwise.

You are absolutely right there are many different types of sources about our history, but when you make statement's about history, especially when the statement deals with a history before our present media global village, written records have been and will probably always be considered the most reliable source when looking into the past.

Originally posted by AuntieEmma

When I say that people are ignoring the history, I don't mean that they've failed to study ancient dusty texts. I mean that they've taken single moments and looked at them in isolation -- as if they were still photographs -- and totally ignored the context. That context could be something that happened two hundred years ago, or something that happened forty years ago, or something that happened last week, or something that happened 30 seconds ago.

Wouldn't reading the "ancient dusty texts" as you called them (and looking at all information before and after), help a person gain a more complete perspective on an event, which in turn would help a person look at something in context. Also taking something into context can vary from individual to individual, there is not just one way to look at a situation, or event of the past. (I.e my view of an event or how I take it in to context would probably be different than your own, so how are you able to say that a person(s) is taking things out of context when it could be yourself that is taking it out context? There are not right or wrong answers, just opinions.)

Originally posted by AuntieEmma

You seem to be arguing that the tension between blacks and whites in the United States is not the only type of racial or ethnic tension that has ever occurred, which is obvious, but how is that relevant to what we're talking about here?

It's relevant because you said just History and not American History, if you wanted to talk about the relations of racial attitudes between black and white people limited to just to American's past you should have said so. Personally I feel it would limit the understanding of the situations since it wouldn't take into account the full history on the subject of racial views between blacks and whites (or any other race, since the topic was limited to just these two races) and may leave people taking things out of context.

Originally posted by AuntieEmma

I'm talking about the United States. About things within the last couple of hundred years, about things within living memory, and about things that still go on right at this very moment.

I think most people would consider living memory as the memory of an individual or group of individuals who personal remember the events of the past (hence living memory), if this is so, how can we have living memory of a couple of hundred years ago, if most people die before they are 80? Doesn't limiting events of the past to living memory, limit a person's understanding of events also? Wouldn’t this make people take things out of context as well? Also I think the meaning of living memory probably varies between individuals as well.

Originally posted by AuntieEmma

If your Germanic ancestors were still bitter towards the Romans while their bondage was almost within living memory, would that bitterness be just as blameworthy as the hostility the Romans demonstrated towards them, would you think the motivation was exactly the same? If the Romans, after freeing your Germanic ancestors, had systematically excluded them from most areas of life, only allowing them to live in certain (not-so-hot) places, only allowing them to take certain (not-so-hot) jobs, would the hostility that arose between the two at that time be exactly symmetrical? If the Romans published books saying they had scientific proof that Germanics were genetically inferior to Romans, would the hostility your ancestors felt at the time the books were published be exactly the same as the hostility motivating the writers and publishers of those books?

Ok first off they weren't made free by the Romans they took back there freedom (but I don't think that relevant), and yes I'm sure my past ancestors would have been pissed if they were told to live in certain areas by individuals(which did happen) and were told they were inferior to the Romans by individuals (which also happened). Just as I'm sure the Romans were pissed when the Germanic tribe members said the same things about them and limited their places to live when they crossed over the borders into Germanic territory (which also happened). So in short to answer your questions, is the origin of the racial hatred the same and is one side more justified in having it, yes to the first question and no to the second, because the hatred is the result of not fully understanding the other point of view of your advisory who is off a different race. It's easy to say that one side has been handed the shorter end of the stick (which I feel was handed to the black people for most of America's History) and as a result one group of people hate the people who handed it to them, and I think it is fair to show hatred towards a person or group of people who did do terrible things to another person or group of people. I know if someone killed a family member of mine or did some other terrible crime against me, I would probably hate that individual too. Notice I said individual and not race. This is my problem with people saying they are allowed to hate a race. I have no problem with people saying they hate a person for doing a crime to you. This is justified in my opinion. This however does not mean you should hate an entire race for a crime(s) committed against you by just one member or group of members of that race. Not all members of a race are the same, each race has hateful people and wonderful people, but to condemn them all for past or present crimes that not all of them have committed, is wrong in my opinion and truly shows racism in it's purest form. If you want to hate someone for doing something against you that's fine, but if you want to hate those who have nothing to do with the situations then I'm going to start stamping the ism labels all over that unjustified hatred.

Rob

PS: I have a proffesor named Dr. David Duke, he gets so pissed off when people confuse him with the other Duke.

[realtraveller]

No, I don't think the black separatists motivations are any more "pure" than those of the white separatists. Louis Farrakhan has called the white man "Satan" and the "devil".

And I don't think your analogy to Canada is apt. That is nationalism at work, not race.

[mshawpyle]

Well, you see, here is the problem.

It's a matter of logical fallacies in your reasoning.

Originally posted by AuntieEmma
The thing is, when people say racism is racism no matter what, they believe that white hostility to blacks is exactly symmetrical, an exact mirror image of black hostility to whites. And it's not.

But that is precisely not what is being said, and it is precisely not what logic would render. To say that A is of the class B and C is of the class B is not the same thing as saying that A and B are precisely identical or mirror each other, that they are alike in kind and degree. Contrary to what has been suggested, I at least, am neither ignorant nor unmindful of history (I am after all by way of being an historian). Moreover, I also lived through part of the recent history you cite. But this in no way changes the logical validity or invalidity of the statements that can be made on this subject.

I do not suggest and do not need to suggest that

+ Black race-based prejudice against white Americans
+ is the same in kind and degree
+ as white Americans's race-based prejudice against Blacks,

to say - as I do say - that

both,

no matter how you wish to extenuate either,

both are

(in varying degrees)

instances of race-based prejudice, i.e., racism.

QED.

[Dani257]

Whew, a lot of activity here. I'm not going to get into everything now, but I will say I regard both David Duke and Louis Farrakan as racists.

I also think that it's dangerous (well, maybe that's not the right word, but it's the best I can come up with at the moment) when you qualify racism.

Oh, yeah, and the whole 'black boy' thing reminded me of something. The kids around here wear this head covering, and I'm really curious as to what it's called. (it looks sort of like it might have come out of Lawrence of Arabia) But, I don't know how to phrase the question without someone taking offense, because 1. I've only seen black people wear it. 2. They are all male. 3. They are all under the age of 18 (or they look like it) So, they are black boys. But, I know some people won't look at the context, but will jump on the phrase and take offense.