Reverse Racism

[Fatstep]

I suck at writings these little introduction type things, so I'll keep it short.

 

Why is there such a double standard in our society (USA) between whites and blacks.

 

I'm sure some of you have heard of them, things like.

If we had an N.A.A.C.P for whites, even though the N.A.A.C.P. was founded by whites, it would be racist.

If we had white pride month, it'd be racist.

 

Black people call us "crackers", but if we call a friend a "nigg@" then we're racists. Blacks do not get suspended for calling people "spics" "crackers" "kykes" "chinks" or anything, but if a white person says any of these, then they are automatically suspended for 10 days.

 

Why is there such a double-standard, and why do blacks not consider themselves racists, when in fact they are exhibiting pure reverse-racism.

[rocket art]

There are white racists, black racists, yellow racists, brown racists, and racism is a bigoted, myopic idiocy that humanity cannot afford nowadays.

[Fatstep]

If we cannot afford it then why is our society afraid of it.

 

I'm just bringing it up because, today at school a black boy called a white boy a cracker from downstairs at school, the white boy walked away and the black boy went up the stairs and got in his face and spit. The white boy pushed him back and the black boy called him some stuff including cracker, the white boy called him a nigger, they got into a fight and the black boy wasn't even punished, the white guy is gone for 15 days. 10 for saying nigger and 5 for fighting.

[rocket art]

If we cannot afford it then why is our society afraid of it.

 

Contempt is aptly preferred term rather than 'afraid'. Stupidity and its horrific arrogance is threat to a society yearning to improve. I believe the real dilemma is not found by stereotyping a certain group, but rather on the struggle of each individual within his/her complex self, and sometimes to escape from such complexity, we conveniently (due to mediocrity in approach) project the dilemma to others.

[BEAKER]

If we cannot afford it then why is our society afraid of it.

 

I'm just bringing it up because, today at school a black boy called a white boy a cracker from downstairs at school, the white boy walked away and the black boy went up the stairs and got in his face and spit. The white boy pushed him back and the black boy called him some stuff including cracker, the white boy called him a nigger, they got into a fight and the black boy wasn't even punished, the white guy is gone for 15 days. 10 for saying nigger and 5 for fighting.

 

You are absolutely right.

 

It is an utter, total, plain as the nose on your face kind of double-standard that those in the politicaly correct crowd must deny even exists, or their whole reason for being, falls appart.

 

But there it is - right in front of you. It's the huge pimple on their nose that is obvious to everyone who is honest, but is obscured within their own field of vision. And it is perpetuated by those dishonest enough to look away and pretend it's not there; when in fact it is all too real.

 

But if we just turn the focus onto something, or someone else; maybe the pimple will just magically go away.

 

But unfortunately, the issue is far more than a pimple; however the real problem is still the people who want to pretend it just doesn't exist.

 

- Whatever color they may be.

[InfiniteNow]

Actually, “reverse racism” would be acceptance of other ethnicities.

 

Racism is racism. The only thing “reverse” about the example you provided is that it serves as a rare counter example to the historical aspects of race-based discrimination, whereby a white individual expresses a derogatory and hateful comment toward a non-white individual.

 

Further, it IS different in an important sense, because those described as white have not been purposefully and institutionally oppressed by those described as black. The same cannot be said reciprocally.

 

The young man calling the other a cracker was espousing just as much hatred as the one who responded by calling him a nigger. He was making a hateful and racist comment and perpetuating a major problem we face in our current culture. However, your feeling that this expression of racism was “reverse” in some way only betrays your own (perhaps unconscious) bias and acceptance of difference based on ethnicity.

 

IMO, the school was incorrect in it’s punishment of the boys. If I were to guess, it is most likely the result of a fear regarding community backlash and a desire to avoid this sensitive topic by acting decisively in a way that would appease the greatest number of people. You are correct that they really could have handled the situation much more appropriately, but it’s their decision/mistake to make.

 

The bigger issue, though, is that these issues still present so forcefully. There is a lot of anger in the world, and it can be described more precisely as a lot of fear. The inhabitants of our world are experiencing, in great number, vast uncertainty and confusion right now.

 

This fear and anger comes out in, what would otherwise be, common encounters of day to day life. If those boys were not full of fear and anger, they would likely have passed by one another without a problem, but they instead chose to “vent.”

 

Individuals across the planet must start realizing that we all share this globe, and that we will always have more in common than we ever have different. Only from there will true progress be made, and maybe we could start speaking of reverse hatred or reverse ignorance instead.

[Fatstep]

I call people who deny being racists, but exhibit true racist acts, reverse racists, it's just something I've been taught. Now that I know it is actually the wrong term, I suppose I can just use bigots or racists.

[hallenrm]

Reminds me of the current battle raging between fundamentalist Hindus and Muslims or that between upper caste Hindus and the OBCs and people belonging to the scheduled castes and tribes. What people like Faststep forget that the these reactions are a result of generations of atrocities committed by the more endowed members of the ruling classes (read races) on the underprivileged races. The people belonging to the hitherto under privileged segments of the society are just beginning to taste power, power that the members of the privileged sections have enjoyed for ages.

[sanctus]

As some pointed out the reason why the society does accept it in only one direction is that black people have been oppressed by white, the white see now their mistake and want to correct it by not allowing racist insults from white to black people any more. Just like if you criticise the politics of Israel, you risk very easily to be treated as an anti-semit...White people (or non-jews in the latter example) feel that too much bad things have been done by them in the past and so are much more sensitive to anything going even only slightly in that direcion.

[Lancaster]

I used to get really exited about this because I felt it was so wrong, but now I really don't care. If someone speaks to you that way, simply file a complaint about it. If that "white boy" hadn't fought the "black boy" he wouldn't be in trouble. If he had simply reported the incident, especially the spitting, the black boy would be the one in trouble. Sure, it's unjust and a double standard, but he deserved the punishment.

[Fatstep]

So, if a person walked up to you, called you racial slurs, spit in your face then punched you in the head, you would just walk away?

[Tormod]

So, if a person walked up to you, called you racial slurs, spit in your face then punched you in the head, you would just walk away?

 

Violence is not the answer to everything, mate.

[TheFaithfulStone]

In order to be a racist you have to have power.

 

Here's the thing. The NAACP advances African-Americans. It does not hold back whites. An NAAWP would by definition hold back blacks because the whites are already "advanced."

 

Let us do a analogy:

 

You are igglyboo. You have 10 apples.

 

I am farkle. I have 8 apples.

 

If I start an group to give farkles one more apple I have narrowed the gap to 1 apple. I have increased opportunity and decreased disparity.

 

If you start a group to give igglyboos one more apple, you have either maintained or increased the disparity. Therefore, your organization is "racist" and mine is not. You may not intend for it to be that way, but as the ONLY possible outcome for your organization is to maintain an inequitable power structure it's part of the definition.

 

Similarly goes "black history month." In case you hadn't noticed, we already have 11 months of "white history" every year. If we had an extra month solely for white history, then we'd have 13 months in a year, we'd be outside the habitable zone, and all the water on the planet would freeze and we'd all die.

 

The defense rests.

 

TFS

[Leila Night]

Similarly goes "black history month." In case you hadn't noticed, we already have 11 months of "white history" every year. If we had an extra month solely for white history, then we'd have 13 months in a year, we'd be outside the habitable zone, and all the water on the planet would freeze and we'd all die.

 

:)

 

Well said.

[Fatstep]

Here's the thing. The NAACP advances African-Americans. It does not hold back whites. An NAAWP would by definition hold back blacks because the whites are already "advanced."

 

 

 

 

Did you know the NAACP was founded by mostly whites and a few blacks?

 

We are all COLORED, I am not white, I am tan, if you are white then the NAACP is not for you, otherwise the NAACP is for all races.

[Leila Night]

Did you know the NAACP was founded by mostly whites and a few blacks?

Probably b/c there were so few educated African-Americans.

The Civil Rights Movement and the anti-slavery movement would have probably been a lot more ...difficult (impossible?) without the support and activism of white (mostly Christian) people. I wish those individuals were recognised more for their efforts...

 

We are all COLORED, I am not white, I am tan, if you are white then the NAACP is not for you, otherwise the NAACP is for all races.

It's all fine and dandy to indentify yourself as "coloured" (I still don't understand the point of that term), but as long as white privilege exists and you are regarded as European in heritage... :) It really doesn't mean much.

 

...And what kind step is a fat one? Just curious.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Did you know the NAACP was founded by mostly whites and a few blacks?

 

So?

 

We are all COLORED, I am not white, I am tan, if you are white then the NAACP is not for you, otherwise the NAACP is for all races.

 

You know perfectly well that "colored" is an old (and marginally offensive) term for what we call "African-Americans."

 

But you make a point (if rather obliquely.) Race is socially constructed. It doesn't *really* exist. Furthermore it's socially constructed by the people in power. White people get to say whose black and who isn't. How's THAT for irony?

 

TFS