University to students: 'All whites are racist'
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58426
BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
University to students: 'All whites are racist'
Mandatory program 'treats' politically incorrect attitudes
A mandatory University of Delaware program requires residence hall students to acknowledge that "all whites are racist" and offers them "treatment" for any incorrect attitudes regarding class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality they might hold upon entering the school, according to a civil rights group.
"Somehow, the University of Delaware seems terrifyingly unaware that a state-sponsored institution of higher education in the United States does not have the legal right to engage in a program of systematic thought reform. The First Amendment protects the right to freedom of conscience – the right to keep our innermost thoughts free from governmental intrusion. It also protects the right to be free from compelled speech," said a letter from Samantha Harris, director of legal and public advocacy for The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education to university President Patrick Harker.
The organization cited excerpts from the university's Office of Residence Life Diversity Education Training documents, including the statement:
"A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. 'The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination….'"
The foundation said students even are "pressured or even required" to make social statements that meet with the school's approval.
"The fact that the university views its students as patients in need of treatment for some sort of moral sickness betrays a total lack of respect not only for students' basic rights, but for students themselves," Lukianoff said. "The University of Delaware has both a legal and a moral obligation to immediately dismantle this program, and FIRE will not rest until it has."
A spokesman for the school, contacted by WND, said he was not ready to make a statement about the situation right away.
Insanity... this is racism, pure and simple, even though it is a social term.
Of course, that there is only one race... the human race.
Some just have more melanin and some equatorial adjustments than others, nothing more.
Same race.
"A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. 'The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination….'"
What? So a black guy from a nice middle class family with his own business, or a black guy in the police force can't back up his discrimination if he is racist towards people of arabic or mexican descent?
*shakes head* that's just ridiculous.
Nov. 1, 2007
The University of Delaware strives for an environment in which all people
feel welcome to learn, and which supports intellectual curiosity, critical
thinking, free inquiry and respect for the views and values of an
increasingly diverse population. The University is committed to the
education of students as citizens, scholars and professionals and their
preparation to contribute creatively and with integrity to a global society.
The purpose of the residence life educational program is to support these
commitments.
While I believe that recent press accounts misrepresent the purpose of the
residential life program at the University of Delaware, there are questions
about its practices that must be addressed and there are reasons for concern
that the actual purpose is not being fulfilled. It is not feasible to
evaluate these issues without a full and broad-based review.
Upon the recommendation of Vice President for Student Life Michael Gilbert
and Director of Residence Life Kathleen Kerr, I have directed that the
program be stopped immediately. No further activities under the current
framework will be conducted.
Vice President Gilbert will work with the University Faculty Senate and
others to determine the proper means by which residence life programs may
support the intellectual, cultural and ethical development of our students.
Patrick Harker
President
This really backs my theory that communism/socialism is being pushed at many of our universities.
This is not really about "race", it is against capitalism.
This really backs my theory that communism/socialism is being pushed at many of our universities.
wtf has any of that to do with socialism? also socialism and communism aren't the same thing.
The education program also notes that "reverse racism" is "a term created and used by white people to deny their white privilege." And "a non-racist" is called "a non-term," because, the program explains, "The term was created by whites to deny responsibility for systemic racism, to maintain an aura of innocence in the face of racial oppression, and to shift the responsibility for that oppression from whites to people of color (called 'blaming the victim')."
According to university materials, RAs are instructed to ask students during one-on-one sessions questions such as: "When did you discover your sexual identity?" "When were you first made aware of your race?" and "Who taught you a lesson in regard to some sort of diversity awarness? What was the lesson?"
"Students who express discomfort with this type of questioning often meet with disapproval from their RAs, who write reports on these one-on-one sessions and deliver these reports to their superiors. One student identified in a write-up as an RA's 'worst' one-on-one session was a young woman who stated that she was tired of having 'diversity shoved down her throat,'" FIRE said.
This particular student responded to the question, "When did you discover your sexual identity?" with the terse: "That is none of your damn business," FIRE said.
Requirements for students include: "Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society," "Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression," and "Students will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality," FIRE said.
that still isn't socialism rk. It may be an attack on laissez faire capitalism or the consumerist society but socialism's a little more than just anti-consumerism and a desire to end racist oppression
The only way to end racism is to stop acknowledging the myth of "race".
That only works if everybody acknowledges it. If it's just you and the poeple who think like you, that's all very well, but it doesn't help the black kid who keeps getting pulled by the cops for no good reason.
There is a point where you just outlive them and educate their kids out from under them until those who still cling to it are ignored and ostracized.
Then society will not tolerate those people being in a police uniform, they will speak-up and stop them when it happens like they should.
Flat Earth.
*thinks about that*
I'd like to think you're right on that. I fear they're doing plenty of educating their kids themselves.
But..either way. If you'e right, then what you are talking about is generational change. In the meantime the problem persists.
Do you really think you can change a "racists" mind?
*thinks*
Sometimes. But mainly if they change they change themselves. I've known a few reformed racists in my time. I know of some interesting cases too. There was an interview with a guy who was a prominent member of the NF during the late seventies, early eighties. He was one of the football hooligan, terrace fascists. He and a couple of his mates got into clubbing in the late eighties, early nineties. Got into ecstacy and the loved up rave scene and totally changed. He's now married to a black lass.
I know some too, related to one and friends with another.
Yes, they change themselves alone, through observation.
I do think that education through schools can help. When I was at secondary school in the 80s, most of the schools in my town were quite racially mixed and promoted a multi-cultural attitude. We celebrated Christmas and easter, harvest festival, and eid and ramadam. Come to think of it so was primary school.
For the most part my generation in that part of the country are pretty non racist.
Where I live now, we have very segregated schools (de facto, not de jure :P) and the generation growing up in them are much less cohesive.
As I stated, taking the attitude that focusing on differences would just not be tolerated (like todays intentionally segregated dorms & stupid-centers... those would be out, you could not separate yourselves based on melanin content).
I have no issue with teaching different cultural backgrounds as long as none are preferred, like giving two weeks off for an xian holiday and none for muslim or pagan ones.
If parents get to choose which school they send their children to, the majority send them to schools where the children are predominantly from the same cultural background.
Its very difficult to stop that process without imposing diversity which then becomes resented and a cause of alarm.
Same with regard to the 'white flight' problem in housing.
People should be sent to the local school and be allowed to live where they want... part of ignoring melanin.
*smiles* yes they should. But unfortunately the result is that people aren;t ignoring melanin. They are making decisions based on race and culture.
So you want to do what the University is doing, indoctrinate them and their kids against their will?
BTW, I don't believe that those who move to the burbs do so because of race, urban myth.
As soon as people of color get the jack they do the same thing.
So you want to do what the University is doing, indoctrinate them and their kids against their will?
Nope. Nothing as crass as what the university is suggesting.
What I was saying, is that in fact i don't know the answer. I was pointing out some cultural changes in my own country which occurred when the way in which school places were allocated changed and the demographic mix of our schools began to change with it. I do believe you can use state education to promote a healthy attitude towards your fellow citizens and good community cohesion. On its own it isnt a silver bullet but done right it can help with that generational change.
BTW, I don't believe that those who move to the burbs do so because of race, urban myth.
As soon as people of color get the jack they do the same thing.
I'm not talking about people moving to the 'burbs. I am talking about people moving from one part of town, or one street to another in order to be amongst a cultural mix they feel more comfortable with and in order to ensure their children go to a school that doesn't have a high proportion of non-white pupils. It's not a myth it's a well documented trend. I have no idea whether or not it applies in the states, I just know it applies over here.
In terms of 'people of colour' doing the same, I don't doubt it.
True story: theres an area f my town which became the main settlement point for our Irish community. They faced terrible anti-Irish sentiment if they tried to move into other parts of town and they sought out people with similar backgrounds and experiences in order to provide each other with a support circle. As time went on attitudes towards the Irish began to alter, and the Irish community became more settled and around the same time, there was a new wave of immigration from Kashmir.
As the new immigrants moved into the area where the Irish had traditionally based themselves, they faced racism from without that area and within. The Irish for their part moved out in large numbers.
Part of this is because house prices were thought (and possibly did, i don't know for sure) to go down on the street when an asian family moved in. One family moves in people get afraid that more of them will follow and put their house up for sale. Because there is an asian family or two living in that street and there are a few houses for sale on it, it makes sense for the incoming asian families to consider buying there. As the mix of the street changes, during a time of racial tension and fear more of the white (or Irish in the example above) move out.
In terms of schooling. The ward I represent is a fairly racist place. My main political opponents (and they came very close behind me) are a far right, white supremacist party. When I go knocking on doors in that ward people are racist. People are upset at the very small number of immigrants who've moved into the area. One woman told me she'd moved her child to a different school because 'a paki had come into her year'. Not her class mind....her year.
I don't know what the answer is. To remove choice would be to impose those values in a heavy handed way and would likely exacerbate the situation, at least in the short term. But...there was much less emphasis on parental choice when I was at school and that is something which has changed. There have been positive effects from that change, but there have also been negative effects. The main negative effect has been the facilitation of people's desire to self-segregate.
"A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. 'The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination….'"
This is the most crazy definition of racism I have ever seen. It's so damn crazy I wonder if it wasn't deliberately put together by some closet white supremacist in order to provoke a backlash.
It is true that white people in the USA (and Australia) are benefiting from a historically racist system. That doesn't make all of them racist. There are many white people who work to alleviate the problem.
It is true that black people are still disadvantaged by the lingering effects of that system. That does not mean they cannot be racist.
The weirdest thing about this definition is that it makes it impossible for white people to ever stop being racists. So why bother trying?
No, the weirdest thing is that it is itself racist, by any sensible definition of "racist", such as "making judgments about people based on their race".
What mind-boggling bullshit.
Just wondering, not long ago I heard about a University in the states (maybe Georgia?) that still bans inter-racial dating. Is this still the case? Where is it? How far is it from this university here? Can we arrange an exchange program? :p
crazy indeed. "All whites are racist" is a mind-boggling statement to me. People are racist. All people persecute the "different."
Education about diversity is a worthwhile thing, IMO, but not from this premise.
ETA: I see they stopped the program now.
That article sets my bullshit meter off the scale. Something is being mis-stated or mis-represented. Those are twisty words.
I'm of a like mind, Perry Winkle. While I there's some stupidity in every group of people, and Universities are not excluded from that, this kind of program as presented would have had people screaming bloody murder at it's inception. It's probably a milder form of stupidity, rather than this heavy handed type thing.
ha haa!!! That's funny...Saying all whites, despite individual qualities, are racist is racist .
That has to be a joke!
:)
well, it certainly doesn't appear to be a joke. There's a message from the University president about it on the UDelaware website.
It appears to be a big joke to me...I guess it's one of those subjective opinion things...oh wait, I'm white...we're all alike...nevermind!!
lol!!!
I remember back when I was in high school, some of the students were using a similar definition of racism. I guess whoever was spreading it back then was successful.
I have a few friends that say you can't be a racist if you are dark.
I screw with them incessantly when it gets brought up.
"Spray tan, diversity in a bottle!"
I have a few friends that say you can't be a racist if you are dark.
I've heard that before too. It basically comes down to power. Whites can be racist because they have the power to influence others while people with darker skin don't have that power so they can't.
Eh, I try to avoid this defining racism for this reason, no one will agree on a one.
I have stated before, I did not get a scholarship and two promotions in a row that I was the most qualified (yes, those who were in charge of the decisions told me, they were pissed at being over-ruled) because I am white and male.
That being in the majority makes you immune is a myth, a HUGE one... a myth and a lie.
That being in the majority makes you immune is a myth, a HUGE one... a myth and a lie.
Correct it doesn't make you immune. It does make you disproportinately likely not to be blocked in promotions, with affirmative action not fully balancing out that trend. But no...doesn't make you immune. The idea that because you are white that alone is power, is a rather unfortunate misunderstanding of the world. Because we mostly all know someone who gives the lie to that, such assertions really don't help the cause, rather they reduce the impact of much truer assertions: that a significant portion of the white community is disproportionately powerful and a significant portion of the black community is disproportionately powerless.
Cold comfort if you happen to be the white guy who lost out to the positive discrimination method, or was raised in some hell hole of a sink estate. Rk, you lost out. That's unfair. But statistically what was bad luck for you is often the norm for another part of the community.
So yeah, you're right, being in the majority ethnic group doesn't make you immune from unfair practices but it makes it significantly less likely.
I've heard that before too. It basically comes down to power. Whites can be racist because they have the power to influence others while people with darker skin don't have that power so they can't.
A rather simplistic view aye. People can be racist. All people can be racist. The effects and impact of that racism, however, may be very different depending upon whether you are of the more, or less powerful group in society. Even if you as a white individual are powerless, the system is still set up to protect your interests more than it is to protect the interests of an 'equally' powerless black individual. Even if you are a relatively powerful black individual, the system will never protect your interests as vehemently as it would protect the interests of an 'equally' powerful white individual.
On an individual basis, however, the system is not always what is in play. Power comes from relationships as much as from the system. If a black, racist policeman harrasses a poor white family in a trailer park, that is as destructive to that family as a white, racist policeman pulling over black kids with no reason.
Even if you are a relatively powerful black individual, the system will never protect your interests as vehemently as it would protect the interests of an 'equally' powerful white individual.
In England?
Yep.
I suspect in the USA as well. The most powerful interests are white.
The old money and the almost unbreakable network connections are white too. Any black Brits with power came by it comparatively recently in our history. I'm not justifying it btw.
Looking at the most powerful families/political and commercial 'dynasties' in America, I get the impression a similar situation exists there.
People perpetuate racism by insisting that it exists ... that the problems of inner city Blacks are problems only because whitey is keeping them down, that Hispanics can't get anywhere because blanco won't let them illegally enter this country and suck social services dry, that Asians are pretty much capable of success wherever they plant roots.
Hmm. Maybe the issue is initiative, family support, and values rather than color.
What a concept.
And here I always thought that people perpetuate racism by...being racist.
If being proud of being white means I'm a racist, then so be it ... but I don't treat people who are black, brown, yellow, or red any differently than I do folks who happen to be white.
Why would being white be something to be proud of? I've never understood that line of thought. I can understand pride in one's looks....or one's culture...natgionalty even....but skin colour? Why is skin colour something to be proud of?
People perpetuate racism by insisting that it exists ... that the problems of inner city Blacks are problems only because whitey is keeping them down, that Hispanics can't get anywhere because blanco won't let them illegally enter this country and suck social services dry, that Asians are pretty much capable of success wherever they plant roots.
Hmm. Maybe the issue is initiative, family support, and values rather than color.
What a concept.
Blacks are poor because they blame others for their problems, don't support their families and have no values other than bitching. Don't you get that what you JUST posted was racist?? You seem to think that an entire group of arbitrarily selected people is only in their situation because they suck.
"Didn't it ever occur to whites that maybe they should stop concentrating on color? If you didn't get the job you qualify for because of 'affirmative action,' why didn't you work even harder so the black guy couldn't possibly get it? How about if they really wanted to change affirmative action, maybe they should get off their asses and vote to change the system. What a concept." Don't you see how those kind of idiotic generalizations fall far from the truth?
And Dana's right, wtf is with white pride? If you're proud of being white, that unarguably implies that you think there's something better about being white than some other
skin color.
And finally, it is true that someone who gets pushed down by the powerful social forces keeping them in place can work real hard and get out of their situation. But here's a question: why should they have to work harder (Often much harder)to get something that I get for free? My parents paid for part of my college, every once in a while they would loan me money for rent/food, and the fact that I went to a nice High School meant it was easier for me to get to school. I could have had a full time second job, it's possible, but I didn't have to. It would have made it a LOT harder, don't we think?
Education and the ability to build your social status is something everyone should get. If it's in our power to change those social forces, it's pretty selfish and lazy to not.
Why is skin colour something to be proud of?
Yeah, I kinda don't get that either. Of course there was the black pride movement, but I think that was more an issue of political awareness.
I value my heritage, my country and its history. I doubt I would ever baldly state that I am proud to be white, but if asked the question I would apply in the affirmative. I don't feel superior and I agree that I did nothing to contribute to its history (yet) but I am glad to be here and happy to say it.
I'm fat and not proud of it, at least leave me something :)
Come on now ... there's Black Pride, Hispanic Pride, Gay Pride, Pagan Pride ... but mention White Pride and it's a hate crime. Why is that?
because the others are political movements designed to promote rights for the powerless. Whites already have the power.
because the others are political movements designed to promote rights for the powerless. Whites already have the power.
Those others are political movements for ethnic solidarity in order to gain power. Similar organizations for whites will be taboo until whites are knocked out of power to a large degree, I guess.
The fact that the Holocaust and black slavery are so recent tends to distort the picture for many.
this is all a load of BS. Pride in your color? why? it is stupid regardless of what your pigment turns out to be. Be proud of who you are. Be proud of what you've accomplished. Be proud of how well you care about/for your family. Be proud of having the willpower to get out of bed and DO something every day.
But being proud of a color? doesn't make sense. Neither does any program or artificial system that takes into account color, ethnicity, sex, or sexual preference. That is bullshit.
If I am a major corporation or government agency that is hiring, my ONLY consideration for who gets the job should be the qualifications of the people seeking to fill the job. Giving the job to someone who is less qualified because they fit the definition of some minority group is in and of itself discrimination.
Well put look.
There is no reason to be proud of anything you have not done.
I like reading about all culture, not just those I am attached to by coincidence.
Color?
No one is the same color as another.
Punk ass bitches with nothing will do anything to feel special.
Do something then talk to me.
Any ____ pride = bigotry.
BTW, I know far more dark "racists" than white, what is worse they feel that it is justified. At least most of the light racists I know are ashamed of it. Morons.
I ask them what everyone's race is now that we know everyone is from Africa and that I now call myself African and they usually just don't want to talk about it.
Someday in the far future everyone will be a uniform light brown in color.
It will be kind of sad if everyone looks the same.
Reminds me of the classic Trek episode with the half-white/half-black people.
I have a hard time being proud of my skin. It's kind of pastey. Not really fun to look at. But I'll be damned if I will sit in a tanning booth again. My husband is not so proud of my skin either...but he hates tan-lines too...so I'm kind of screwed. (No matter how concealed... there are always tan-lines) I'm scotch/irish...I'm pre-disposed to skin cancer and well, all cancer because I'm hedon. So I try not to push it with the tanning, sunlight thing. I however, am proud of my husband's skin because he's hot. (not that I would fly it as a flag or anything) And it will not always be so, so I have to deeply appreciate these things now before they are over. I will tell you that there a ton of photos being taken.....what was the question?
To understand black versus white pride you have to look at how they started.
Black, Hispanic, Gay pride was started because society told these groups that they should be ashamed of who they are and then the pride movement was reactionary to that.
Never has overall society told whites to be ashamed of their skin, so the only reason for white pride is jealously of black pride or a counter moment to black pride, which is more or less baseless and childish.
Although, skin color is different from heritage. Heritage actually as some meaning, where as skin color, like hair or eye color, means shit.
Someday in the far future everyone will be a uniform light brown in color.
It will be kind of sad if everyone looks the same.
Reminds me of the classic Trek episode with the half-white/half-black people.
The majority of people are like that now and they all don't look the same.
No...now it's appropriate to be ashamed of your skin. Racist.
Hey and if we are the only people with enough power to enforce hate crimes then we can do it to each other and wipe each other off the map......racists are an inferior race.
Oooh. The spin is so biting.
:)
Good morning vietnam I need lunch. Otherwise there won't be food in my hands and I'll keep typing.
Gay pride is just as stupid as "racial pride".
Proud of how you were born?
Makes no sense.
you may not like the nomenclature, but I believe such social movements by minorities are valuable in order to educate and increase awareness when human rights are being violated.
Setting yourself apart as a group is counterproductive, it plays into the hands of the opposition.
Stating that anyone can be gay, the stereotype is a falsehood and choosing to ignore it, instead turning your back on those who are ignorant instead of playing into their hands, has always been the most effective means of fighting.
You remove the target, call it guerrilla warfare.
Setting yourself apart as a group is counterproductive, it plays into the hands of the opposition.
That would make sense as an argument if hitherto well accepted and respected groups of socety had decided to separate themselves in that way. Actually Gay Pride is e response to the fact that they were already separated off from and
by society and singled out as worthy of moral opprobrium purely on the basis of their sexuality.
They didn't single themselves out, they were singled out by the rest of society. LIkewise the Black Pride movement was a response to a particular cultural norm which sent a message, loud and clear, to anybody with dark skin that they were less than those with white skin. Again, they did not choose to separate themselves from a previously harmonious situation. They were separated off by both de facto and de jure segregation and treated as second class (and earlier as less than human) citizens.
When society, government and law all tell black people that their legal status, intelligence, capability and culpability and even attractiveness is dicated by their skin colour/racial heritage and that to be considered truly competant, culpable, intelligent and beautiful they need to be white or of European descent, then it is a reasonable and appropriate response to attempt to redress that. You cannot bring the see saw back into balance if you don't apply weight to the other side.
ok, so once upon a time someone thought people with dark skin were inferior and discriminated against them. so a movement based on the idea that "we are not inferior" blossomed. yay. but how do we get from there to discriminating against another group as the solution?
Like I said lookout:
Racists are now an inferior race and we need to take them out.
Racists are white...not brown...not yellow..not red. Nope...I've never met a brown racist. They are all white. They need to recognize their inferiority.
What a goat-fuck.
One of those paradoxes that I reject and give no validity to.
Well...once upon a time makes it sound an awfully long time ago Lookout. That kind of attitude is relatively recent and the socio-economic effects are still playing out. The reason discriminating against another group can be seen as a possible solution is that in order to remove the historic (and statistically still current) inequalities is to impose a control mechanism.
If some of the political parties in the UK hadn't enforced all-women shortlists in a limited set of circumstances, the number of women currently serving in Parliament would be minimal. It's still a long way from representative, but without some kind of imposed control mechanism to force change, we'd be looking (at the old rate of progress)at taking another three or four hundred years to reach something approaching parity.
This means that some women who are excellent candidates and who would have stood little chance of being able to follow that path were given that chance. The cost of their getting that chance, was that some men who'd have made excellent candidates and for whom the old system would have given them an excellent chance of being able to follow that path, were not given that chance.
The number of women in Parliament is still low compared to male participation. This means that despite the fact that some men lose out to the all-women shortlists, overall, it is still more advantageous to be male in politics.
Dana if there was a male who would have been better in a position then the people certainly receive no benefit from a servant who was selected simply due to their lack of a penis. any job selection process that takes into account anything other than someone's qualification and ability to do the job is wrong. full stop.
Lookout it's a case of changing cultural bias - the women weren't inferior but if they were up against a man the fact he did have a penis gave him a better chance.
We haven't had universal suffrage in this country for even a century yet - it takes time to change things. In fact if there had ever been a referendum on the subject we probably wouldn't have it yet.
And do remember that Star Trek (that ancient historical document) was ahead of its time with its mixed race crew. It's not all that long ago you know.
I don't care what someone else did, when, it is not my job to pay for it and I will not accept it and will fight against it.
Good okay, you fight against it. Meanwhile, other groups who've been subject to far greater discrimination are fighting against that.
I discriminate against no one and will not own shit I did not personally do.
All group-think is the same.
I am a product of my country's history, my family's history and my own personal history.
I will celebrate the culture in which I was raised and I consider myself lucky in that it was the culture my parents were raised in and that my grandparents were raised in. Before that generation the countries were different but the cultures were at least similar.
If other people want to celebrate the cultures in their history, then I wish them the pleasure of it. However I would like to continue to enjoy the things that I celebrated in childhood as well as what they celebrated, especially if their childhood was in a different country/ culture. My mantra would probably be, "Don't step on my festivals and cultural icons as I have no intention of stepping on yours," except being a Brit I'd probably add, "if you don't mind." And soddit, I am proud I was raised with manners.
I am a product of my country's history, my family's history and my own personal history.
I will celebrate the culture in which I was raised and I consider myself lucky in that it was the culture my parents were raised in and that my grandparents were raised in. Before that generation the countries were different but the cultures were at least similar.
If other people want to celebrate the cultures in their history, then I wish them the pleasure of it. However I would like to continue to enjoy the things that I celebrated in childhood as well as what they celebrated, especially if their childhood was in a different country/ culture. My mantra would probably be, "Don't step on my festivals and cultural icons as I have no intention of stepping on yours," except being a Brit I'd probably add, "if you don't mind." And soddit, I am proud I was raised with manners.
But the question is: Do you believe you are a racist because you are white?
In fact, you are as white as I am (really white)...does this mean that we are
really racist?
No. I absolutely refute that idea.
To me racism denotes some form of hatred or discrimination.
Sure, I do form immediate impressions on the colour of people's skin. But in the same way I make assumptions re age or dress.
If I am waiting at a bus stop and there is an old granny there, I will be pleasantly surprised if a teen of any colour lets her on first. If I am walking down the street behind two mothers side by side with pushchairs I will be pleasantly surprised if one of them has peripheral vision and drops back to let me past. In the same spirit as the above, I have found Chinese students crowd you on pavements (end up brushing your shopping bags or your shoulders) and Asian men push to the front of queues.
It's all generalisation, but I do not hate any of these people and do not feel superior to them. Sometimes I have to accept what I call manners is not the way they were raised - and that includes white Brits.
I wonder what couples who are married to a contrasting skin color think about their racism.
I wonder what couples who are married to a contrasting skin color think about their racism.
We weren't married but we lived in a defacto relationship for six years. My husband had darker skin than me. We both used to make jokes which people from the outside would have considered extremely racist. An example of this is if I was relaxing and he asked me to do something, I might reply by saying, "do I look black to you?" He'd usually respond by saying something like, "get off your arse you lazy palangi (white person)".
It depends on your perspective and how you feel about racist remarks. To us it was a joke and a way of accepting our differences through humour.
IMHO anyone who thinks that only whites can be racist are idiots. You obviously have never lived where the majority of people are of darker skin. My family never owned slaves. Get off your high horses and make something of yourself. Like RK has said, I think that the continual state of playing the race card is counter productive to making progress and plays into the hands of those who support racist notions. Me and my family need not suffer the injustice of race based promotion or affirmative action policies because of some historical fact. Screw that.
Manners has nothing to do with anything.
There is no need to respect an illogical idea, it is not disrespectful of any individual holding that idea.
Feeling pride in a coincidence of birth or place is illogical.
Unless you can make it logical for me, please, feel free.
Pride is for something one accomplishes, not chance.
Being born gay, Irish, Welsh, Black, Red, Green, American or Australian, tall, short, disabled, blind, etc, is nothing to be proud of.
If you do something, then you can be proud of it.
I'm not particularly proud of being white. I am proud of my northern heritage though. The reason I am proud of my northern heritage is tied up with northern culture and the sense of class pride which that usualy encompasses. Pride in your home town (as evidenced by people's tendency to support their home town in sports even if they're not a sports fan) is something which every community tries to engender in its citizens. Pride in, love of, one's home town helps to promote civic responsibility and a sense of belonging. What colour you are, to me, is irrelevant. Where you were born is not irrelevant, it speaks of where you have come from. Where you live is not irrelevant, it speaks to who you are. I identify very strongly with the town I was raised in and the town in which I now live. I identify very strongly with the class I was born into and the culture that prevailed within that class. I idenitify very strongly with my region, possibly to an even larger extent to my identification with my country. That said I identify very strongly with my country (England) and also Europe. All these things matter to me because they dictate the culture in which I was raised.
I also feel a strong sense of 'pride' in my heritage, my family's past, my class's past, my gender's past. All these things matter to me. I feel a sense of pride in the women who fought so hard so that women of my generation would be able to take part in our democratic institutions. I feel a sense of pride in those working class lads and lasses who made it possible, through their struggle, for me to have an education and access to healthcare and employment rights.
To me, class and gender are of much greater importance than skin colour...but then again the battles in my country were primarily based on class and gender, not skin colour. Although skin colour has been an issue in my country (Rivers of Blood speech and all that) and continues to be, it has never been as wide an issue as that of class. Perhaps in a country where colour was the major dividing line, those descendents of colour will look to the battles their grandparents fought and see pride in their achievements, in much the same way I look at the Tolpuddle Martyrs, the Chartists and the General Trades Union in my history.
A little under a thousand years ago, William the Conqueror razed the North to the bare soil. Remembered to posterity as The Harrowing of the North, the destruction was such that twenty years later, most of Yorkshire was still counted as 'Waste'. Well over 100,000 people were slaughtered, many more died of starvation. Animals, crops, villages, towns, all suffered. Like the Anglo-saxon kings before him, William based himself in the South. That's where the money flowed. Even when King Cotton strode the Pennines in the 18th and 19th centuries, the work may have been done in the North, but the finance flowed South. We still have something known as the North-South divide. The North is significantly poorer than the South. Opportunities for wealth creation are fewer in the North and the culture of the North is primarily working-class. I identify myself as a Northerner. These things are important to me.
Dana is pointing out here, that she is English, and I am Irish.
Well-played!!
No Irish, No Dogs!! N.I.N.A.
lol!
Ali- I was making a remark directed along the lines of: even though you are white married to a black person, you are still a racist. (According to this new definiton of racists)
I think that would be very insulting. Especially since the new policy is: Racist if white, no matter what.....
What if you are half -white? Are you half-racist? This is ridiculous. I need to get out of this thread.
uuugh.
Black, Hispanic, Gay pride was started because society told these groups that they should be ashamed of who they are and then the pride movement was reactionary to that.
Can you say "backlash?"
I don't know about you, but I've been pretty well told that everything in history is someway my fault, even though I wasn't there.
i'm a 33 year old straight, white male. sometimes when i look at how hard i've worked to scrape by and then get to where i am now, i think "wow, how did i have time to do that while i was busy holding back and oppressing blacks, mexicans, women, and gays?"
A one panel cartoon I saw once read "I don't know who has been oppressing you for 300 years but they must be much older than I am."
Ah ha, I see. Now we know who the oppressed really are...
I'm not oppressed, except for me oppressing myself. And this town I live in is oppressive, but it's not limited to a particular race, sex, or religion. ;)
Can you say "backlash?"
I don't know about you, but I've been pretty well told that everything in history is someway my fault, even though I wasn't there.
Well it is your fault...
aren't you a woman?!?
lol!
I'm not particularly proud of being white. I am proud of my northern heritage though. The reason I am proud of my northern heritage is tied up with northern culture and the sense of class pride which that usualy encompasses. Pride in your home town (as evidenced by people's tendency to support their home town in sports even if they're not a sports fan) is something which every community tries to engender in its citizens. Pride in, love of, one's home town helps to promote civic responsibility and a sense of belonging. What colour you are, to me, is irrelevant. Where you were born is not irrelevant, it speaks of where you have come from. Where you live is not irrelevant, it speaks to who you are. I identify very strongly with the town I was raised in and the town in which I now live. I identify very strongly with the class I was born into and the culture that prevailed within that class. I idenitify very strongly with my region, possibly to an even larger extent to my identification with my country. That said I identify very strongly with my country (England) and also Europe. All these things matter to me because they dictate the culture in which I was raised.
I also feel a strong sense of 'pride' in my heritage, my family's past, my class's past, my gender's past. All these things matter to me. I feel a sense of pride in the women who fought so hard so that women of my generation would be able to take part in our democratic institutions. I feel a sense of pride in those working class lads and lasses who made it possible, through their struggle, for me to have an education and access to healthcare and employment rights.
To me, class and gender are of much greater importance than skin colour...but then again the battles in my country were primarily based on class and gender, not skin colour. Although skin colour has been an issue in my country (Rivers of Blood speech and all that) and continues to be, it has never been as wide an issue as that of class. Perhaps in a country where colour was the major dividing line, those descendents of colour will look to the battles their grandparents fought and see pride in their achievements, in much the same way I look at the Tolpuddle Martyrs, the Chartists and the General Trades Union in my history.
A little under a thousand years ago, William the Conqueror razed the North to the bare soil. Remembered to posterity as The Harrowing of the North, the destruction was such that twenty years later, most of Yorkshire was still counted as 'Waste'. Well over 100,000 people were slaughtered, many more died of starvation. Animals, crops, villages, towns, all suffered. Like the Anglo-saxon kings before him, William based himself in the South. That's where the money flowed. Even when King Cotton strode the Pennines in the 18th and 19th centuries, the work may have been done in the North, but the finance flowed South. We still have something known as the North-South divide. The North is significantly poorer than the South. Opportunities for wealth creation are fewer in the North and the culture of the North is primarily working-class. I identify myself as a Northerner. These things are important to me.
Are you proud of the raising of Atlanta, the slaughter of civilians and the scorched earth campaigns of the North as well as the killing of black confederate pows by the north instead of treating them the same as whites?
If you are proud of the positives that you had nothing to do with you must also be of the negatives, correct, or is this similar to theism where you only associate with the truths you like and disassociate with those that you do not wish to acknowledge?
It is just not logical.
You did not do any of these things.
I can see enjoying a sense of community, history, etc, but "pride", when you actually did nothing?
Makes no sense to me.
I associate with the Southern way of thinking, but in no way am proud of what the south did, nor the north. The US is comprised of both and see no sense in claiming either as my own, I was not there though my family did participate on both sides.
I do not think of myself as white, Cherokee, apache, black, Caribbean, welsh, Scottish, Irish, or anything else that I may be that I am unaware of, these are the only that I know of.
I am proud of my education, the work that I have done, relationships that I build and maintain, art that I do and have done, decisions I make, actions.
Again, please, anyone... make being proud of something other than an accomplishment logical.
Accidents are nothing to be proud of, IMO.
Pride is not always a bad thing, its a source of identity. It is just when people go over the top with pride and nationalism or have pride in pointless traits do we start to get problems.
I think you and I have two different definitions of pride, perhaps.
If you are proud of the positives that you had nothing to do with you must also be of the negatives, correct, or is this similar to theism where you only associate with the truths you like and disassociate with those that you do not wish to acknowledge?
Possibly one could feel
shame associated with the negatives in one's history instead, as long as the personal connection is roughly of equal strength as the pride in the positive aspects.
Possibly one could feel shame associated with the negatives in one's history instead, as long as the personal connection is roughly of equal strength as the pride in the positive aspects.
No one should carry around "shame" for historical acts unless you were directly responsible in some way.
I agree, I'm just pointing out that his statement that DanaC must be "proud" of negative aspects of her history is not accurate (leaving aside the fact that he has her heritage on the wrong continent in his examples.)
Not personal "shame," anyway. But society as a whole should be aware of historical acts, and recognize which ones shouldn't be repeated, and maybe even need to be corrected...to help the present eventually become better history, hopefully.
Even though none of us are individually responsible for what happened in history (good and bad), it's still part of what we are, because we came from it.
There are different types of pride. A parent can feel great pride in their children's achievements. Part of that will be born of their part in creating the child and raising it to make those achievements. But part of it will be a pride born of love or close association. That is a different source of pride to the personal pride one takes in one's own achievements.
The pride I feel in my heritage is born of *thinks* associating into, identifying with that heritage. What is important to me about that heritage is not connected with skin colour, but rather with cultural associations and a sense of my place in the chain. My world is not just made up of what is, but also of what has been.
After Grendel pointed this thread out to me, I sampled three pages.
What I see here is the Cellarers at their finest and most sensible.
And let us thank whatever Powers we acknowledge for the good sense of President Harker.
Are you proud of the raising of Atlanta, the slaughter of civilians and the scorched earth campaigns of the North as well as the killing of black confederate pows by the north instead of treating them the same as whites?
Psst. RK, Dana is from the north of
England. Didn't those references to William the Conqueror tip you off?
For the record, it doesn't affect your arguments any.
Although it did make me think of one thing. This definition of racism, mad as it is, is specifically tailored to the USA, and generally tailored to places where there has ever been a racial supremacist structure. Has Britain had this? Better check with Dana, but if not, then great news! All the Brits here are non racist. (I don't think anti-Irish/Scottish/Welsh bigotry/repression could count, because I doubt that they could be construed as a different race.)
: ponders Australian history : oooh damn I'm such a bad guy.
Although it did make me think of one thing. This definition of racism, mad as it is, is specifically tailored to the USA, and generally tailored to places where there has ever been a racial supremacist structure. Has Britain had this?
Ummmm.... Hell yes.
Britain owned the world at one time via sea power. So did a number of other European countries. Including England, if we historically look at only Africa the others that come to mind are Portugal, Spain, France, Germany, Belgium, And Italy. The US was not even involved, except from an export basis in Africa (humans). But if you look around the world even the US was trying to break into the ownership/control/colonialism book in a number of countries. And least we not forget one of England’s greatest treasures, The East India Company and The area we now know as India.
Touche!
For some reason (or none at all) I was thinking in terms of a racially segregated society within the British Isles. : removes blinkers :
Good lord I have read Kipling and some similar stuff, White Man's burden and all that.
Say, Merc, do you like Kipling?
Answer: [COLOR="White"] I don't know, I've never Kipled.[/COLOR]
I think the situation in the colonies is a different matter to the situation in the UK itself. In terms of racial segregation, there was really only de facto segregation, rather than de jure segregation.
Obviously, prior to the abolition of the slave trade in britain, there were black slaves, but not in the same numbers as there were in sugar growing colonies. There would have been a few cities where large numbers of slaves would be processed, but the serving classes in the UK were the lower social orders, not imported slaves. Even then, one could be black and free, being black did not automatically confer inferior status in law.
We did, however, have laws limiting the particiation of Catholics, Jews and non-Anglican protestants, up until, I believe the 19th century.
Mostly our legal constraints on the person have historically settled onto the working classes and the very poor. And....y'know...the Irish....and women.
Within the colonies, however, we would often institute very codified and strictly hierarchical systems which would take account of racial background and class. In the British colonial mindset, the average middle-class / upper-class administrator would have far more in common with the ruling elites of the countries they governed than than the working-classes of their own culture.
It's a different history to America. Class is/was a much bigger factor in our political culture, I think.
Australia as a colony has a disgusting record as far as racism goes.
We're descended from people who thought it was ok to hunt down all the aboriginal people in Tasmania and shoot them, basically so that there were no aboriginals left alive on the island.
Of course, this is possibly the worst thing as far as cold blooded murder goes, but let's not forget the stolen generation (the systematic removal of aboriginal children from their families) and the fact that aboriginal people were not even allowed to participate in government processes (including voting) till about the 1970's.
Oh yes, when an Australian talks about racism, they're speaking from a position of experience that's for sure.
No one should carry around "shame" for historical acts unless you were directly responsible in some way.
On the surface it makes good sense. I tend to agree. But I wonder about this.
What if you today are continuing to benefit from some historical act, while someone else is continuing to be a victim from the same act? Let me make up an example: If your great grandfather was a pirate who amassed great wealth by stealing it from others. You grew up in this rich family, and today you meet a descendant of one of your great grandfather's victims. You are wearing some expensive jewelry that used to belong to the family of this other guy. You didn't personally steal it, but you still posses it. Should you feel shame for that? (I think yes.)
Now change the example to something that's more of a gray area. You grew up in an old plantation in the South. Your family is one of the few that is still well off from the money generated by slave labor over a century ago. Should you feel shame that you are well off, while some of the descendants of your family's former slaves live in poverty? (I think yes, a little.)
One final example. You are the child of immigrants, living in the South. Nobody in your family even lived in this country during the time that slavery was legal. You work hard and save up enough money to buy a nice historic old house that happens to have been built by slave labor. Any shame there? (I think no.)
You are wearing some expensive jewelry that used to belong to the family of this other guy. You didn't personally steal it, but you still posses it. Should you feel shame for that? (I think yes.)
Why? Did I steal it? Did I do anything to possess it other than be born? Did the other guy do anything that necessarily entitles him to possess it? If it is something that is easily identifiable as historical item of significance and important to the other guy's family, then it would be an act of class to gift it to him, but certainly not necessary.
Should you feel shame that you are well off, while some of the descendants of your family's former slaves live in poverty? (I think yes, a little.)
Again, why? Did I personally do anything that led these people into poverty? My guilt or feelings of discomfort are reserved for things that I have some sort of control over. I can't control what happened then, I can control what I do now. Flip it to the otherside (much smaller scale) My grandfather once invested in and owned large tracts of land where midway airport is today. He was absolutely and verifiably screwed over by a couple of individuals who became stinking wealthy and have passed that wealth on to the current generation. My grandfather never recovered financially and died penniless and had nothing to pass on. Should I have some claim to those riches? I don't think so, those were events before I was born and have no bearing ont he choices I make with my life and the opportunities I have in front of me.
You work hard and save up enough money to buy a nice historic old house that happens to have been built by slave labor. Any shame there? (I think no.)
absolutely not, it is just a piece of property and who built it is of little relevance except for coctail party conversation.
Why? Did I steal it? Did I do anything to possess it other than be born? Did the other guy do anything that necessarily entitles him to possess it? If it is something that is easily identifiable as historical item of significance and important to the other guy's family, then it would be an act of class to gift it to him, but certainly not necessary.
How does this compare to, say, things stolen by the Nazis in WWII? How about buying stolen speakers out of the back of a van? (Assuming the items in question can be verifiably traced back to the specific people they were stolen from.)
On the one hand, I feel there is definitely a statute of limitations on crime--not just a legal one, but an ethical one. But on the other, if all you did to get the expensive jewelry was to be born, then if it's returned to the rightful owner then that shouldn't really affect you either, right?
Items stolen by the Nazis? Well, if it something that has been knowingly kept in a warehouse hidden from prying eyes all these years because the owner stole it and doesn't want to give it back... i think there is an obvious case for it's return. If it something that has been out in circulation for 60 years, been bought and sold, and transferred around... well, life's a bitch and bad stuff happens to possessions in a war. move on. If the current owner feels compelled to return it, fine. if not, fine. it's just stuff.
Speakers out of a van? c'mon, i knowingly purchased something under shady circumstances. LJ may be a nice guy but if he is selling it out of a van I know i'm taking my chances.
Why? Did I steal it? Did I do anything to possess it other than be born? Did the other guy do anything that necessarily entitles him to possess it? If it is something that is easily identifiable as historical item of significance and important to the other guy's family, then it would be an act of class to gift it to him, but certainly not necessary.
Let's assume in this example that if it hadn't been stolen a century ago, it would be his. And you both know it, but it can't be proven in any court.
You say it would be a class act to return it. I agree. I'd go further and say there is shame in continuing to hold onto it, because it's ill gotten. I think that by continuing to hold onto it, the person is actively continuing a misdeed done by their ancestor.
I don't know where to draw the line though. I think something like paying off the descendants of the slaves would be drawing the line too far, for example.
see i feel no guilt in continuing to hold it. if i felt compelled to give it to them, so be it. but you can't make me feel guilty about holding something just because someone a long time ago stole it. i just feel every family has a skeleton in the closet and you can make yourself crazy trying to fix a wrong that occurred long before you were born.
if the other guy has spent his whole life, and his father's life without the possession and probably didn't even know it existed, why does he need it now? it has never been in his life before and he has continued to breathe up to this point.
I just remembered that I have a German army helmet from WW2 stashed in a trunk somewhere. Don't know the story of where it came from, other than my grandfather, who never served, gave it to me a while ago. Don't know where he got it. There's a good chance that who ever owned it was killed in combat and it was collected on the battlefield. Or maybe it was collected from a prisoner. Either way, it was probably taken by force. I have no problem holding on to it. Feel no guilt.
Beats me.
Just like I do not feel pride for something I have not personally done or had anything to do with nor will I accept guilt/remorse for anything I have not personally done/created including the "big picture" shit, ignorant people love to lay at the doorstep of Americans and any wealthy.
This thread has turned interesting... 'Are we responsible for our ancestors' actions?' has always been a point of indecision for me. It's against that whole 'american spirit' to take handouts, yet we feel justified if it's wealth passed down from our parents. On the other hand, we're supposedly not responsible for the sins of the father.
So we get all the benefits (i.e. wealth, social standing, nice jewelry), but don't have to suffer any of the negatives. This has always seemed a little twisted, and gives a heavy advantage to those on the upper crust of society. Sure I'm a millionaire because my dad screwed over thousands of people throughout his lifetime. Not my fault, but I'll keep the money if it's all the same to you. While this doesn't sit right, is it therefore OK to take money from that person because he didn't earn it? Not really.
So I got to thinking a few nights ago. This idea that 'I've earned everything I worked for, and I get all the credit for it,' doesn't fit logically. Let's think, did I make my car? Did I cast the iron and paint the body and set the timing, etc? On the same hand, did I invent my iPod, and build it from scratch?
Ok, so I work 40 hours a week for all the things I own, which is fair compensation for that amorphous society for what it gives me in return. So, it would logically follow that people who work 40 hours a week (if you include compensation for their time spent in college, and other training) get a fair living.
So why is it that Joe Citizen who worked 200 years ago got relatively little compensation? Because his ancestors had not yet done the work for him. He had no ipods or automobiles. It stands to reason that no one actually earns everything they get. We are all standing on the shoulders of everyone that came before us, so none of us can rightfully claim to have earned everything we were given (unless you live in the woods, built everything you own, and hunt for your food). Is this something to be ashamed about? Probably not, but it's certainly a bit bull headed to claim that I worked for what I got, and someone else who works just as hard if not harder doesn't deserve the same.
We're all getting handouts from our grandfathers, but the handouts aren't the same.
Oh quee, you are so ignorant with your "big picture" shit. ;)
Hey Merc....don't forget the English/Irish ordeal.
So let me get this straight, by the definition put forward on page one of this post, and by reading some of the people on here....I am guilty of being a racist. Because I'm of European decent.
AND I'm guilty, and should be ashamed of the Israeli, Palestinian problems because I'm descended from Polish Jews, some of who could have moved to the new country of Israel after WWII?
Holy shit! I don't know how some of you get up and eat breakfast without feeling guilty. Man, why not go all the way? I think you're responsible for Eve eating that damn apple. That's right, you are responsible for all of human history and it's fuck ups. I know it's not an original idea, the Catholic church beat me to it. So, if you're not Catholic, perhaps you should convert.
Wake up, live a day at a time, and take responsibility for your own life. Right here, right now. That's it.
This makes me livid.
I kinda wish I was enrolled in this university so that I could kick up a fuss.
Seriously, have we not atoned enough our forefathers sins?
This university suggests that all white people are prejudiced to everyone and anyone.
I am sorry that slavery happened, but i don't apologise for it.
using an example from everyday life, I am sorry that person X got robbed, but do I apologise for it?
It wasn't me who robbed you, and left you and your children penniless, and therefore put your children's and your children's children at a disadvantage.
Surely we the population at large are not racist, because we do not disadvantage the disadvantaged further, and helped the disadvantaged.
At the end of the day, the robber is the real racist.
Runaway metaphors...I hate it when that happens too..
:)
