A Rose By Any Other Name...

Jamie Stick wrote:

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Jamie Stick wrote: I guess I don't understand why cracker would even be close to the same caliber as oriental and negro.

Like, yeah, being called cracker might hurt your feelings but it doesn't have the historical weight of dehumanization that oriental and negro have.

because when someone is called a racial slur it is an insult to their basic person

Except that when a person of color calls a white person 'cracker' it's like saying to your boss, "You're fired." Sure, the boss might be a little hurt that you think they're so bad they deserve to be fired, but it doesn't really do anything. When the boss says, "You're fired" then you're out of a job.

Racism and racial slurs against white people do exist, and do happen, and should, in my opinion, be considered just as bad as racism and racial slurs against any people. If we want to combat racism we can't go around thinking that it's okay to be racist against the majority just because they're the majority.

Goken wrote: Racism and racial slurs against white people do exist, and do happen, and should, in my opinion, be considered just as bad as racism and racial slurs against any people. If we want to combat racism we can't go around thinking that it's okay to be racist against the majority just because they're the majority.

Good joke. :laugh:

But seriously, please explain to what racism against white people is.

Jamie Stick wrote:

Goken wrote: Racism and racial slurs against white people do exist, and do happen, and should, in my opinion, be considered just as bad as racism and racial slurs against any people. If we want to combat racism we can't go around thinking that it's okay to be racist against the majority just because they're the majority.

Good joke. :laugh:

But seriously, please explain to what racism against white people is.

Calling me names or treating me differently due solely to the color of my skin. That's racism. And I'm not saying that it happens a lot, I'm just saying that we shouldn't give it a pass when it happens to white people just because we're white. We shouldn't excuse racism towards anyone. Reversing the direction of an injustice does not remove it, it just changes who's on the receiving end. I'd prefer that we work towards removing it entirely instead of just pointing it at someone else.

Goken wrote:
Calling me names or treating me differently due solely to the color of my skin. That's racism. And I'm not saying that it happens a lot, I'm just saying that we shouldn't give it a pass when it happens to white people just because we're white. We shouldn't excuse racism towards anyone. Reversing the direction of an injustice does not remove it, it just changes who's on the receiving end. I'd prefer that we work towards removing it entirely instead of just pointing it at someone else.

I'm not saying that calling some a cracker isn't hurtful, I'm saying that your conception of racism isn't anything by comparison to what I refer to as racism which would be slavery, segregation, Jim Crow laws, New Jim Crow, police brutality, cultural appropriation, housing discrimination, food deserts, 'random' airport security checks, Guantanamo, church burnings, gentrification, etc. 'Reverse racism' is nothing more than a way to shift focus from actual racism that results in hundreds, if not thousands of deaths a year.

And all of that stuff is awful Jamie, I never said otherwise. No one here has. I'm also not saying that it's the same. But, slavery is also not the same as calling someone oriental, which is where this conversation started. Comparing 'cracker' and 'oriental.' Two terms meant to refer to a person of specific origin in a derogatory manner. That is what I was talking about since that's what I quoted from the beginning. It's not my fault that you wanted to compare any of it to the Jim Crow Laws.

But as long as we are talking about those sorts of racism. While they may not be the same, nor carry the same weight as it were, they do stem from the same place, a belief that one group of people is inferior to another. Since they come from the same source one can draw certain amounts of comparisons. What I was trying to say is that the we can't combat the belief that one group of people is inferior to another if we let any group belittle another just because the belittled group has less of a history of being belittled or has a history of belittling the other. If we hope to move on both 'sides' need to stop acting childish and move on.

Goken wrote: But as long as we are talking about those sorts of racism. While they may not be the same, nor carry the same weight as it were, they do stem from the same place, a belief that one group of people is inferior to another.

Actually, they don't. The term cracker comes directly from referring to white slave foremen who used bullwhips on slaves and indentured 'free' black people (read slaves in practice, free in name only). Since this country and white people more specifically, benefit from the cruelty of the 'cracker', it's not a totally inaccurate descriptor of white people. EDIT: It also doesn't dehumanize white people, merely asserts that the person who is being called cracker acts with cruelty and violence.

Whereas terms like n***er, co*n, sp*c, wetb*ck, ch*nk, etc were all terms to belittle the intelligence, worth, and humanity of people of color. So no, they don't have the same origin and to pretend they do is both ill-informed and a bad faith argument.

I'm not the guy who likes to post Webster definitions, but this could be an instance when we are trying to compare the basic definition of racism (a belief that all members of a race share certain characteristics specific to that race) to the behavior that can come as a result of racist beliefs (slavery, segregation, etc).

As an example of this fine distinction, we can segregate men of all races from women of all races based on a belief that women are inferior. The men may then decide they can keep women as slaves because of this. This is behavior based on sexism, not racist. It is equally appalling behavior, but not racist.

Calling me a "cracker" because I am white is racist according to the definition, so it should not be tolerated. Goken has made this point. That doesn't mean he is comparing it to the far more egregious behavior and legislation that has been perpetrated against people of color by a white majority throughout our history. You are right, Jamie, that these behaviors are far more damaging and dangerous than calling a white guy like me a "cracker". They are both wrong, just to very different degrees. As Jedi, we should be trying to prevent both.

Jamie Stick wrote:

Goken wrote: But as long as we are talking about those sorts of racism. While they may not be the same, nor carry the same weight as it were, they do stem from the same place, a belief that one group of people is inferior to another.

Actually, they don't. The term cracker comes directly from referring to white slave foremen who used bullwhips on slaves and indentured 'free' black people (read slaves in practice, free in name only). Since this country and white people more specifically, benefit from the cruelty of the 'cracker', it's not a totally inaccurate descriptor of white people. EDIT: It also doesn't dehumanize white people, merely asserts that the person who is being called cracker acts with cruelty and violence.

Whereas terms like n***er, co*n, sp*c, wetb*ck, ch*nk, etc were all terms to belittle the intelligence, worth, and humanity of people of color. So no, they don't have the same origin and to pretend they do is both ill-informed and a bad faith argument.

Yes because calling someone a cruel, violent bully based on skin color is not dehumanizing at all.

As a person of Color, I can tell you that racial slurs against white people in America do exist, for I hear it in my community.
Just because what is said in one comtext is believed by others not to have the same percieved power, doesnt mean it doesnt hurt.

Lets not forget that when we say things we are not saying them to establishments, but to people. We are talking to people.

Slurs should not be allowed. Period.

Rosalyn J wrote: As a person of Color, I can tell you that racial slurs against white people in America do exist, for I hear it in my community.
Just because what is said in one comtext is believed by others not to have the same percieved power, doesnt mean it doesnt hurt.

Lets not forget that when we say things we are not saying them to establishments, but to people. We are talking to people.

Slurs should not be allowed. Period.

Not allowed? As in a law passed? Because I think there is a vast difference in censoring oneself out of politeness and decency and having the government enact force. Language should NEVER be policed by the government outside of threats, slander, libel, and calls to violence.