The history white people need to learn

[One Brow]

according to the arcticle it seems that 100+ years ago, white = rich and powerful
So does that mean that wealthy and powerful africans, asians, arabs, etc were considered to be white back then? Interesting

100+ years ago the poor person of English/Scot/Welsh/German/etc. were considered worth of chances to prove themselves, to advance socially, to be managers, to be given loans for businesses, to be army officers, etc. The Irish and Serbians were fit to be foremen, police, etc., but not in the upper levels of management. Black people would only be bosses of other black people.

 

[One Brow]

But were they considered white in their time? For example, did they suffer from Jim Crow like blacks did? Did they have to use superstar drinking fountains? Did their children go to separate public schools?

They were more of a light gray than white. White enough for some things, but not others.

 

[fishonjazz]

100+ years ago the poor person of English/Scot/Welsh/German/etc. were considered worth of chances to prove themselves, to advance socially, to be managers, to be given loans for businesses, to be army officers, etc. The Irish and Serbians were fit to be foremen, police, etc., but not in the upper levels of management. Black people would only be bosses of other black people.

Was this true worldwide? or just in the U.S.

 

[moevillini]

They were more of a light gray than white. White enough for some things, but not others.

LOL!

Please post a photo of someone you would consider to be "light gray" in skin tone.

 

[TroutBum]

It's a tough and touchy time to be old and white in America. Changing demographics will inevitably end the electoral relevance of the Southern Strategy; 2016 truly is the last stand and shock and confusion will reign as Republicans realize they are Custer. If a Democrat wins in 2016 the Republican Party will implode.

One can only hope. Not because I love Democrats, but because I really hate what the Republican Party represents. That is, what I believe it represents.

You are allowed to think that, and you are allowed to choose to be wrong. If you go back about 120 years, you'll find drawings illustrating the supposedly ape-like features of the Irish, essays on their low character, etc.

If you go back 120 minutes, the Googles can show you essays, blog posts, and opinions about what worthless bags of dump white people are too. Because it's on the webz, or in your case, print, then it must be true.

Sooner or later white people will stop blaming black people for how white people treat black people.

Sooner or later black people will stop blaming white people for how long dead people treated other long dead people.











I'm not going to hold my breath.

 

[moevillini]

...Sooner or later black people will stop blaming white people for how long dead people treated other long dead people.





I'm not going to hold my breath.

Well that's a relief. Cause then you might turn blue, and we'd have to add that to the list of colors we discuss. I'd rather keep it a simple black and white discussion and leave the blues and grays out of this battle.

We fought that war 150 years ago anyway!

 

[♪alt13]

It's not confusing them to note that they have common elements.



I have listened to the rhetoric. I learned to listen without feeling the need to defend myself and my position in society, and doing so allowed me to see past the guilt I was imposing onto the rhetoric.

It seems that guilt is your prime motivator in matters of race. That fact that you think that you see past it is humorous to me.

If you think term like "straight people" are not pervasive in discussion of gay pride, then it's really hard to take anything you have to say on the subject seriously.

You surely understand the difference between the phrases "white People" and "the white man". I was involved in canvassing against prop 3(protection of marriage) and never once heard anyone say "the straight man". It is confusing the issue.

Finally, of course it is about pride, in the sense that pride (the willingness to be open about who you are) is in some ways the opposite of shame (hiding who you are). It's just not about the type of pride you described earlier.

I disagree and I stand by my previous argument.

Y0u could make similarly true statements about ***, but you choose not to. Why?

Cuz... I don't know what term you are referring to. Maybe I would make similar statements.

I think you should acknowledge the benefit you have received from an identity that you had nothing to do with constructing, and note how your words can serve to either combat or reinforce this identity.

You are the one imv that is reinforcing race based identity. I do my best to address it without reinforcing it. I have no problem confronting the reality of racial inequality and injustice without resorting to to the kind of rhetoric that you are so fond of. Rhetoric that more often than not serves to perpetuate a racially divided society.

Sooner or later white people will stop blaming black people for how white people treat black people.

Agreed, but it is an unfair characterization of my position/statements. I did not blame black people for the way they are treated by whites and I have made numerous posts on this board to the contrary. I simply hold black people accountable when they say some ridiculous ****. Just as I do when whites say some ridiculous ****.

 

[TroutBum]

Well that's a relief. Cause then you might turn blue, and we'd have to add that to the list of colors we discuss. I'd rather keep it a simple black and white discussion and leave the blues and grays out of this battle.

We fought that war 150 years ago anyway!

You're so damn cute I just wanna pinch your cheeks.

 

[moevillini]

^ sexual harassment!


ok, back to the topic...

I think the author of the article should review a bit of history herself...

Seems to me that a lot of this originated from the Black Power movement of the late 1960's and early 1970's, which morphed into Black Pride...
Black Power probably seemed a little too threatening.



How many of you know anything about this? Is this taught in social studies or history classes?

Here's one of the most memorable examples:

 

[One Brow]

Was this true worldwide? or just in the U.S.

I'm fairly sure that the people who lived in Poland and Ireland disagreed, while the people in IndoChina had no opinion whatsoever on the matter.

If you are asking about the those of British/German descent the world over, then yes, it was common in many countries.

 

[One Brow]

LOL!

Please post a photo of someone you would consider to be "light gray" in skin tone.

Who was talking about skin tone?

 

[One Brow]

If you go back 120 minutes, the Googles can show you essays, blog posts, and opinions about what worthless bags of dump white people are too. Because it's on the webz, or in your case, print, then it must be true.

I'm describing a prevailing attitude that appeared in books/magazines/newspapers that were considered of sufficient importance to be preserved.

Sooner or later black people will stop blaming white people for how long dead people treated other long dead people.

How far back is "long dead" for you? Last month?

Culture continues, and perpetuates, until it is changed.

 

[LogGrad98]

So are you saying our culture is exactly the same as it was 120 years ago? We have not changed at all then. Even with a black president it is no better. I think you are a little deep into this. I think if we cannot acknowledge progress so we have something to build on then we force ourselves to perpetuate the culture. There is more than a little catch 22 her imo.

 

[One Brow]

It seems that guilt is your prime motivator in matters of race. That fact that you think that you see past it is humorous to me.

What I feel, mostly, is anger. There may indeed be some guilt behind it as well. Of course you can see past it, to a degree, once you acknowledge it.

What's blocking your sight in this regard?

You surely understand the difference between the phrases "white People" and "the white man". I was involved in canvassing against prop 3(protection of marriage) and never once heard anyone say "the straight man". It is confusing the issue.

Any time there is opposition to a rights movement, that opposition has an identity that it gathers around. I'm sure you heard several references to, for example, "family values advocates" and similar people.

I disagree and I stand by my previous argument.

I'm sure you do.

Cuz... I don't know what term you are referring to. Maybe I would make similar statements.

What I feel, mostly, is anger. There may indeed be some guilt behind it as well. Of course you can see past it, to a degree, once you acknowledge it.

Among other things, it's a slang term in Britain for a cigarette.

You are the one imv that is reinforcing race based identity. I do my best to address it without reinforcing it. I have no problem confronting the reality of racial inequality and injustice without resorting to to the kind of rhetoric that you are so fond of. Rhetoric that more often than not serves to perpetuate a racially divided society.

Thanks for your opinion. If you chop off the stalk of a dandelion, and ignore the roots, then it grows back. Everyone agree with cutting off the stalk, but fewer people are comfortable with digging down a couple of feet to get the entire root; the lawn gets messy. I know you like your lawns nice and neat.

Agreed, but it is an unfair characterization of my position/statements.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I was referring to a cause and equivalent of what you were describing, not directly characterizing that particular statement.

 

[One Brow]

So are you saying our culture is exactly the same as it was 120 years ago?

It has changed because it was pushed into changing by people determined to change it.

 

[One Brow]

I disagree and I stand by my previous argument.

I should have added the caveat that, of course, "black pride" will mean different things to different people. Here's the take of Ms. Daniel, the author of the article in the original post:

Being proud of being white doesn’t mean finding your pale skin pretty or your Swedish history fascinating. It means being proud of the violent disenfranchisement of those barred from this category. Being proud of being black means being proud of surviving this ostracism. Be proud to be Scottish, Norwegian or French, but not white.

 

[LogGrad98]

It has changed because it was pushed into changing by people determined to change it.

From most of your commentary in this thread I would be inclined to believe you feel it is time for us to step up and stop slavery, which is why I asked the question. I think you are somewhat stuck in the 50s era civil rights movement.

It almost seems like racial munchhausen syndrome. By forcing the perpetuation of the disease you can feel at peace with your identity built around fighting the disease. If you are forced to acknowledge that the disease has indeed improved then the sense of identity that comes from fighting it is threatened.

 

[One Brow]

If you are forced to acknowledge that the disease has indeed improved then the sense of identity that comes from fighting it is threatened.

I fully acknowledge that racism has become less oppressive over the last 70 years. That doesn't diminish my desire to reduce it further. Do you think the fact of less oppression should reduce the desire to keep reducing oppression? Why?

 

[moevillini]

LOL!

Please post a photo of someone you would consider to be "light gray" in skin tone.

Who was talking about skin tone?

Oh! Sorry, I didn't realize you were referring to the book. I didn't read it, so I have no clue where "light gray" would fall on the spectrum of fifty shades.

 

[TroutBum]

I'm describing a prevailing attitude that appeared in books/magazines/newspapers that were considered of sufficient importance to be preserved.

I'm sure I could go back to the first year of the webz and find articles and opinions about why white people are worthless, but we're just being silly at this point.

How far back is "long dead" for you? Last month?

Culture continues, and perpetuates, until it is changed.

I think a generation or two is sufficient. Clearly, at this point you've come to terms with how The White Man treated The Red Man, so I'm guessing that your idea of long dead is somewhere between a month and 500 years. What do you consider "long dead"? More to the point, when will it be time for "the oppressed" to be fully responsible for their circumstances, and not blame it on Whitey?