The person who was fired was forced/coerced into using it against their preference? I find that unlikely. Please explain.
Racism and privilege
- Thread starter One Brow
- Start date
The person who was fired was forced/coerced into using it against their preference? I find that unlikely. Please explain.
So because cracker was not used by an oppressor it is less racist?
Yes. Again, there is a difference between racism (a power structure) and bigotry.
Political correctness is teaching that they are "African Americans".
The only reason they are losing those opportunities and privileges is their race. No other reason. That just shifts who the victim is. It does not solve anything.
There can be differences but cracker is a racist term used for racist reasons. Racism can be more than a power structure. It can also be an attitude on an individual level. You attempting to brand that as bigotry instead of racism is pointless. The motivations are the same. Hate based on race, wether as a solitary act or a lasting characterstic of that person.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
The obvious implication was that I was advocating for using the "n" word by sharing the story, not the person in the anecdote. I figure you knew that. Being purposely obtuse?
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Nobody is fat on purpose. If it was on purpose they wouldn't have to cry themselves to sleep
My apologies. I read too much into your post. The common trope is that white folk complain about not being able to use the "N" word because black folk use it. My response was a reaction to what I thought you were alluding to.
Racism for me has never about language per se, but about action and suppression. I also think the word Racist gets thrown around too much and that a lot of times the terms bigoted and prejudice would suffice. There is a difference.
Absolutely there is.
In my opinion, you're dead wrong.
Wrong.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
You don't get to redefine words to fit your argument. What you are referring to is closer to an apartheid(best I could come up with on the fly)
A racist doesn't necessarily need a power structure supporting them to be a racist. You know this it just doesn't fit your current argument very well.
A white homeless bum that thinks black people are inferior and routinely uses the "n" word is both powerless and racist.
Completely disagree. I think I use "racism" the same way OB uses it...as a sociological word that connotes a power structure. It's what I learned in sociology class.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Sociological
Last edited:
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
The problem isn't the definition you choose to use the problem is the definition you are trying to exclude.
You can't just take a sociology class and then try to fit the whole of reality into that box.(this is why you are required to take numerous classes in different areas of study in order to graduate)
What do you think I am trying to exclude?
As a juvenile my white friend and I were playing bumper pool at a community rec center that we played indoor soccer at. We were the only white people there. A group of Hispanic kids didn't seem to appreciate our presence there. They called us white bread and crackers before one of them threw a bumper pool ball against a cinder block wall and told us to get the **** out.
Sorry UGLI, yeah, I've taken offense to being called a cracker before. I've been in numerous situations where being white was not advantageous. But I grew up in a poor multiracial neighborhood. I've known poor white people, and poor Tongans, and poor Mexicans, and poor black people. And in that Utopian equality of poverty that many socialists and Marxists aspire to being white doesn't carry the same weight that it does in the mainstream society. I suppose that's justice, eh?
Are you say that there are lessons in schools, or some such, devoted to making sure that blacks are referred to only as "African Americans"?
See, when I feel that I no longer have quite as much male privilege as I had 30 years ago (although I still have a lot), I don't see myself as a victim because women are a little closer to equal. In fact, the notion that loss of privilege equals victimization is rather bizarre.
By the way, notice how you didn't say "we are Americans"? Even with all your claims you want to treat everyone the same, you still reflexively separate them from your group.
Racism does not require hate, just differential treatment.
I didn't infer any such thing. From your post:
If the worker in question did not want to use the word, why did they? I made no claim that you are advocating for using the word. I am asking you to justify your position that we can't assume the worker in question wanted to use the word.
Apartheid was a government-sponsored, legally-endorsed discrimination. What's your word for discrimination based on cultural forces but not enshriined, and technically opposed, in law? Why insist on using two different words (racism and bigotry) to describe the same thing, when the first word is used by just about everyone who studies the subject professionally to refer to discrimination based on cultural forces, and we don't have another word for that?
My usage is the one in the professional mainstream, not yours.
A bigot doesn't need a power structure to support bigotry. Racism is defined differently. The term "a racist" describes every human, so holds no real meaning.
1) The use of "bum" shows classist thinking. Very few homeless are so by choice.
2) Even while homeless, the white homeless are treated better than the black homeless, and still get a small measure of privilege in that regard.