N***** in a Woodpile.

capo4th

No that's black on black racism it's fine

Fretwired

RandallFlagg said:

also, how many black cops are highlighted for shooting white offenders dead in the US?

It happens ..

https://www.mrconservative.com/2014/08/48057-black-officer-shoots-white-man-no-media-outrage/

Dominic

What about if a black person shouted out "wassup my Nigga ?" to a white person ......would the White person be racist if he was offended or annoyed?
 What about if the White person wasn't offended but called back " All cool here Nigga " Would that offend the black person ?
Can a mixed -race person use the term Nigga  and only be considered half offensive ?
 Groucho Marks , his Gentile wife and their child go to an exclusive Waspish Hamptons Country Club back in the 1930s soon after he became famous.After sitting round the pool Groucho takes his top off and procedes in his bathing costume towards the Pool.
 He is intercepted by one of the Club Stewards who says .." Sorry , No Jews allowed in the Pool "
Groucho,quick as a flash says ..." What about my son ?...He's only half Jewish ; Can he go in up to his waste ?"
 What a ridicule this whole conundrum is !

bodhi

This thread could do with a couple of man hugs and sudden onset of amnesia.

Lewy

Why do people get so wound up about the concept of there being a word, or even a few words, that might be ok for a black person to use but not a white person?

Why do otherwise seemingly intelligent people become completely blindsided by this nuance, to the point where they simply must bottom out every conceivable scenario and combination of races where the word might be used etc etc. Use your common sense, and on the whole, if you're white, default to not using the N word in every day conversation...even if sometimes, some black people use it as a non-offensive term. It's really not that difficult.

Drew_TNBD

Lewy said:

Why do people get so wound up about the concept of there being a word, or even a few words, that might be ok for a black person to use but not a white person?

Why do otherwise seemingly intelligent people become completely blindsided by this nuance, to the point where they simply must bottom out every conceivable scenario and combination of races where the word might be used etc etc. Use your common sense, and on the whole, if you're white, default to not using the N word in every day conversation...even if sometimes, some black people use it as a non-offensive term. It's really not that difficult.

What nuance?

Nuance would be accepting that sometimes between close friends, some who are white and some who are black, that that word is fine to be used.

And consistency would be also condemning the use of a ton of other words that other races use to denigrate white people.

Snap

I think the whole thing is easily summed up by context. My mate calls me a cunt, I don't get offended: someone I don'tknow calls me the same, the red mist comes down.

Like I said before, people can be too quick to get outraged, gives them something to do.

Drew_TNBD

And who is wound up? No one. It's just that you can't answer the questions posed to you without your ideology shattering to bits.

CabbageCat

Drew_TNBD said:

And who is wound up? No one. It's just that you can't answer the questions posed to you without your ideology shattering to bits.

Have you never had a conversation with someone who has become wound up about inconsistencies between races, racism and racist language? I have.

Lewy

Drew_TNBD said:

Lewy said:

Why do people get so wound up about the concept of there being a word, or even a few words, that might be ok for a black person to use but not a white person?

Why do otherwise seemingly intelligent people become completely blindsided by this nuance, to the point where they simply must bottom out every conceivable scenario and combination of races where the word might be used etc etc. Use your common sense, and on the whole, if you're white, default to not using the N word in every day conversation...even if sometimes, some black people use it as a non-offensive term. It's really not that difficult.

What nuance?

Nuance would be accepting that sometimes between close friends, some who are white and some who are black, that that word is fine to be used.

And consistency would be also condemning the use of a ton of other words that other races use to denigrate white people.

But words that other races use to denigrate white people have way less power to hurt, because white people have most of the power.

At this point you'll accuse me of being a snowflake SJW and trying to say that you can't be racist to a white person.

Well I absolutely think you can be racist to a white person, and white people are no more deserving of racist treatment than any other race. BUT - anyone with any realism would have to say that whilst you can be racist to white people, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the impact of that racism against white people has been way way less than racism applied to other races. The opportunity for that racism to become an executive act that harms the white person is lower. That's the nuance as I see it, and the reason why consistency is as meaningless as it is unattainable.

And it just seems so silly to me that - given all that history and irrefutable imbalance - people are so resentful of there being a word that other people can use but they can't. It's infantile to me.

Lewy

Drew_TNBD said:

And who is wound up? No one. It's just that you can't answer the questions posed to you without your ideology shattering to bits.

If that's for me, feel free to pose your questions....I haven't spotted any in what you've said (other than "What nuance" which I've answered, ideology feels like it's still intact so far)

Boromedic

Lewy said:

Drew_TNBD said:

Lewy said:

Why do people get so wound up about the concept of there being a word, or even a few words, that might be ok for a black person to use but not a white person?

Why do otherwise seemingly intelligent people become completely blindsided by this nuance, to the point where they simply must bottom out every conceivable scenario and combination of races where the word might be used etc etc. Use your common sense, and on the whole, if you're white, default to not using the N word in every day conversation...even if sometimes, some black people use it as a non-offensive term. It's really not that difficult.

What nuance?

Nuance would be accepting that sometimes between close friends, some who are white and some who are black, that that word is fine to be used.

And consistency would be also condemning the use of a ton of other words that other races use to denigrate white people.

But words that other races use to denigrate white people have way less power to hurt, because white people have most of the power.

At this point you'll accuse me of being a snowflake SJW and trying to say that you can't be racist to a white person.

Well I absolutely think you can be racist to a white person, and white people are no more deserving of racist treatment than any other race. BUT - anyone with any realism would have to say that whilst you can be racist to white people, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the impact of that racism against white people has been way way less than racism applied to other races. The opportunity for that racism to become an executive act that harms the white person is lower. That's the nuance as I see it, and the reason why consistency is as meaningless as it is unattainable.

And it just seems so silly to me that - given all that history and irrefutable imbalance - people are so resentful of there being a word that other people can use but they can't. It's infantile to me.

Therein lies the crux of the argument, well said. Its the usual argument that gets put out there, well people are racist towards white people too, like it somehow makes it okay......

How this is difficult to grasp I'll never know, Caucasian people have had the balance of the worlds power for around 2 millennia, committed genocide, rewritten the history of other great nations containing people of non white origin, and tried to make them effectively non human or certainly lower on the food chain than white people (mainly Europeans). That doesn't get erased overnight and when you treat people like that then generally they will react in the same vein.

Racism or certainly prejudice against non whites has been perpetuated in recent centuries to keep the lower classes divided, as they were generally all in the same shit together and few of them would discriminate against each other. Until people realised that they could be dangerous if they rose up. So as a form of power and control you keep them squabbling against themselves by promoting racist propaganda and people don't notice their own pockets being picked by those in power, or at the very least they are less of a threat.

Whilst I don't think we have to keep on apologising for the sins of empire in the past we do have to accept some of the fallout still, a person of African origin being disparaging about white people is small fry compared to the meaning of the N word to those same people. That being said it would be nice if we could all get along, but I'm not that naive either. There are cunts in all walks of life and maybe that's the word we should use instead of crass old analogies that I have never ever heard in my lifetime and my parents could say plenty in their own ignorance.

Drew_TNBD

Lewy said:

Drew_TNBD said:

Lewy said:

Why do people get so wound up about the concept of there being a word, or even a few words, that might be ok for a black person to use but not a white person?

Why do otherwise seemingly intelligent people become completely blindsided by this nuance, to the point where they simply must bottom out every conceivable scenario and combination of races where the word might be used etc etc. Use your common sense, and on the whole, if you're white, default to not using the N word in every day conversation...even if sometimes, some black people use it as a non-offensive term. It's really not that difficult.

What nuance?

Nuance would be accepting that sometimes between close friends, some who are white and some who are black, that that word is fine to be used.

And consistency would be also condemning the use of a ton of other words that other races use to denigrate white people.

But words that other races use to denigrate white people have way less power to hurt, because white people have most of the power.

Which is just flat out wrong. Power has nothing to do with race or skin colour. Power also has nothing to do with a persons capability (or not) to be hurt or denigrated. In different societies different types of people hold different types of power. Your view just isn't nuanced enough.

The reason that power has nothing to do with race or skin is because when you take in the empirical evidence from the entire world and it's history, you'll see that there are many different races and skin colours all throughout the power spectrum. The only thing that people in power have in common is their shared desire to seek power - and likewise the only thing that people who don't have power have in common is their lack of power. The arbitray factoids of their persons very rarely match.

There are commmonly two types of racism - institutional racism and interpersonal racism. They are not the same as one another. You've not even mentioned which one you're referring to, but by linking race to power you seem to be lumping all racism together into institutional - which is not the reality before us.

In China or Japan institutional racism *can* and often *does* have the same impact on white people that institutional racism in North America and Europe has on black people. This is the nuance as I see it, and it's something you seem to be blind to.

And things have been changing for a while in America and in Europe. I don't deny that there was institutional racism towards black people in America and Europe. But we've done a very good job of rooting a lot of that out. But on the flipside there is now institutional racism against white people where there wasn't before. Hiring practices are large companies for example, where they will deliberately not hire a white person on the basis of their skin colour. The Evening Standard does this, the BBC does this, and other organisations too. This is institutional racism.

On an interpersonal level we've already seen from @Robgilmo that indeed, white people ARE just as affected by racist words, insults, and jibes. I too experienced some of that when I was 17 and worked at an Indian run family business - I quit the job because of it.

I wont call you a snowflake or an SJW double, as tempting as it might be. Because I really want to demonstrate how incorrect and incomplete your worldview is on this, and it's a worldview you can see echoed across Tumblr, Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit.

The idea that racism=prejudice+power is the root of your opinions on this matter. And they originate with academics like Peggy McIntosh who in the 1980's concocted a powerful mix of racebaiting, genderbaiting, and anti-establishment anti-capitalist philosophy, and taught it to her students and lecture halls around the USA. The ideas took root and are now the fundamental basis for a lot of social justice theory.

But the core arguments are easily dispelled using classical liberal and individualist rebuttals that we have had since the early 19th century from John Locke and others.

If your view of the world boils down to "whitey has power and no-one else does" then you really need a strong cup of coffee and a stack of books. Because you're woefully misinformed.

Drew_TNBD

Boromedic said:

How this is difficult to grasp I'll never know, Caucasian people have had the balance of the worlds power for around 2 millennia, committed genocide, rewritten the history of other great nations containing people of non white origin, and tried to make them effectively non human or certainly lower on the food chain than white people (mainly Europeans).

You're only able to say this because you're limiting your realm of understanding. Go and read up on the Mongolian empire, the Ottoman Turkish empire, the Rashidun empire. The reason it's difficult to grasp or agree with you is because some people have more knowledge and a better understanding of world history than you. Europeans have done some savage shit. No question. Non-white empires have done just as much, if not more - and often *to* the European nations of their day!!

Lewy

Boromedic said:

crass old analogies that I have never ever heard in my lifetime and my parents could say plenty in their own ignorance.

I think you have to cut older people a lot of slack when it comes to this stuff, not least of all because it's been a bit of a circuitous route to what is generally accepted language now. I'm 45 and I remember when, in the UK at least, "coloured" was polite and "black" was insulting.

But I only think it applies to the elderly. If someone has learned to use email and the internet even though they didn't exist in their lifetime, it's reasonable to expect them to possess the mental agility to ever so slightly adjust their vocabulary.  

Boromedic

Drew_TNBD said:

Boromedic said:

How this is difficult to grasp I'll never know, Caucasian people have had the balance of the worlds power for around 2 millennia, committed genocide, rewritten the history of other great nations containing people of non white origin, and tried to make them effectively non human or certainly lower on the food chain than white people (mainly Europeans).

You're only able to say this because you're limiting your realm of understanding. Go and read up on the Mongolian empire, the Ottoman Turkish empire, the Rashidun empire. The reason it's difficult to grasp or agree with you is because some people have more knowledge and a better understanding of world history than you. Europeans have done some savage shit. No question. Non-white empires have done just as much, if not more - and often *to* the European nations of their day!!

No shit sherlock, I'm not limiting my realm of understanding but who in our most recent history had the largest balance of power? White Europeans. Yes other nations and empires have committed as many heinous crimes as ours did, but the fact remains that in recent history (the Ottoman empire was crumbling long before it was finally destroyed in the first world war, from c18th according to Wikipedia) Europe had the balance of power and our history reflects this. Our distorted world view comes from this as history is written by the victors, I speak from experience as I've lived in the middle east what they teach here is very different to the very one sided stuff I was fed at school and beyond.

Drew_TNBD

Boromedic said:

Drew_TNBD said:

Boromedic said:

How this is difficult to grasp I'll never know, Caucasian people have had the balance of the worlds power for around 2 millennia, committed genocide, rewritten the history of other great nations containing people of non white origin, and tried to make them effectively non human or certainly lower on the food chain than white people (mainly Europeans).

You're only able to say this because you're limiting your realm of understanding. Go and read up on the Mongolian empire, the Ottoman Turkish empire, the Rashidun empire. The reason it's difficult to grasp or agree with you is because some people have more knowledge and a better understanding of world history than you. Europeans have done some savage shit. No question. Non-white empires have done just as much, if not more - and often *to* the European nations of their day!!

No shit sherlock, I'm not limiting my realm of understanding but who in our most recent history had the largest balance of power? White Europeans. Yes other nations and empires have committed as many heinous crimes as ours did, but the fact remains that in the most recent history (the Ottoman empire was crumbling long before it was finally destroyed in the first world war, from c18th according to Wikipedia) Europe had the balance of power and our history reflects this. Our distorted world view comes from this as history is written by the victors, I speak from experience as I've lived in the middle east what they teach here is very different to the very one sided stuff I was fed at school and beyond.

Why are you only concerned about "recent" history? Why is that the only relevant thing in your eyes?

You must've gone to a pretty shit school, because nothing I was "fed" was one sided. I was taught to look at all sides of an issue and try to reveal biases and attitudes across the board. I did have an excellent history teacher to be fair.

You talk about distorted worldviews, but I'm not the one who is ignoring half of the history of the planet in order to maintain a political framework and social ideology.

Empiricism please. Not feelsies.

Boromedic

I'm not only concerned about "recent" history as you put it, but is it not that very history that has the most bearing on the present? Most peoples world view is fed by that same history, and all of what we read now about even ancient civilizations has to be read through the rose tinted glasses of who has already altered or influenced that history prior to us learning about it.

Just as one example, most people believe ancient Egyptians look very much like slightly darker skinned Europeans (mediterranean or Turk like in appearance), when in fact the majority (as you would expect) were of African origin and mostly had very African features like dark skin and afro hair. Why do we think the former? Our history has been hijacked to make us believe it and consistently promoted by Hollywood as one example.

I had very good history teachers however what they teach is affected through the prism of the material available, mostly written by white people..... 

CabbageCat

Drew_TNBD said:

Boromedic said:

Drew_TNBD said:

Boromedic said:

How this is difficult to grasp I'll never know, Caucasian people have had the balance of the worlds power for around 2 millennia, committed genocide, rewritten the history of other great nations containing people of non white origin, and tried to make them effectively non human or certainly lower on the food chain than white people (mainly Europeans).

You're only able to say this because you're limiting your realm of understanding. Go and read up on the Mongolian empire, the Ottoman Turkish empire, the Rashidun empire. The reason it's difficult to grasp or agree with you is because some people have more knowledge and a better understanding of world history than you. Europeans have done some savage shit. No question. Non-white empires have done just as much, if not more - and often *to* the European nations of their day!!

No shit sherlock, I'm not limiting my realm of understanding but who in our most recent history had the largest balance of power? White Europeans. Yes other nations and empires have committed as many heinous crimes as ours did, but the fact remains that in the most recent history (the Ottoman empire was crumbling long before it was finally destroyed in the first world war, from c18th according to Wikipedia) Europe had the balance of power and our history reflects this. Our distorted world view comes from this as history is written by the victors, I speak from experience as I've lived in the middle east what they teach here is very different to the very one sided stuff I was fed at school and beyond.

Why are you only concerned about "recent" history? Why is that the only relevant thing in your eyes?

You must've gone to a pretty shit school, because nothing I was "fed" was one sided. I was taught to look at all sides of an issue and try to reveal biases and attitudes across the board. I did have an excellent history teacher to be fair.

You talk about distorted worldviews, but I'm not the one who is ignoring half of the history of the planet in order to maintain a political framework and social ideology.

Empiricism please. Not feelsies.

Are you suggesting that white people are sensitive about their race because they were persecuted by the Mongol Empire?

Drew_TNBD

CabbageCat said:

Drew_TNBD said:

Boromedic said:

Drew_TNBD said:

Boromedic said:

How this is difficult to grasp I'll never know, Caucasian people have had the balance of the worlds power for around 2 millennia, committed genocide, rewritten the history of other great nations containing people of non white origin, and tried to make them effectively non human or certainly lower on the food chain than white people (mainly Europeans).

You're only able to say this because you're limiting your realm of understanding. Go and read up on the Mongolian empire, the Ottoman Turkish empire, the Rashidun empire. The reason it's difficult to grasp or agree with you is because some people have more knowledge and a better understanding of world history than you. Europeans have done some savage shit. No question. Non-white empires have done just as much, if not more - and often *to* the European nations of their day!!

No shit sherlock, I'm not limiting my realm of understanding but who in our most recent history had the largest balance of power? White Europeans. Yes other nations and empires have committed as many heinous crimes as ours did, but the fact remains that in the most recent history (the Ottoman empire was crumbling long before it was finally destroyed in the first world war, from c18th according to Wikipedia) Europe had the balance of power and our history reflects this. Our distorted world view comes from this as history is written by the victors, I speak from experience as I've lived in the middle east what they teach here is very different to the very one sided stuff I was fed at school and beyond.

Why are you only concerned about "recent" history? Why is that the only relevant thing in your eyes?

You must've gone to a pretty shit school, because nothing I was "fed" was one sided. I was taught to look at all sides of an issue and try to reveal biases and attitudes across the board. I did have an excellent history teacher to be fair.

You talk about distorted worldviews, but I'm not the one who is ignoring half of the history of the planet in order to maintain a political framework and social ideology.

Empiricism please. Not feelsies.

Are you suggesting that white people are sensitive about their race because they were persecuted by the Mongol Empire?

No. I am suggesting that the Mongolian Empire conquered half the planet, but we never hear about how Mongolians should apologize for what their ancestors did. You only ever hear it about American and European people - and even then European people seems to be limited to British, English, German, or French.... I've never heard anyone say that Greeks or Italians need to be held to account for their history.

There is a very peculiar masochistic/suicidal mindset to all this - that only we are deserving of criticism and ridicule, and only we are obligated to feel ashamed and embarrassed to be who we are.

It's the selective choosing of history in order to make political strawmen that I am criticising here. I'm not trying to represent a pro-whitey agenda or anything like that.

But white people in Japan and China do feel sensitive about their face and often do face persecution - and that's in the modern age, not 2000 years ago.