Race- Privilege, Relations, Racism, etc.

Nope. It's all equally bad.

I'm baaaaaaack

So you think a stereotype of a white person should be seen as bad as stereotype of black person, even though the latter is contributing to a terrible real world system and former isn't?

Put me in motion, drink the potion, use the lotion, drain the ocean, cause commotion, fake devotion, entertain a notion, be Nova Scotian

So? We should aim to get rid of both. Are you saying that treating a white person as inferior to black is not something to oppose?

Rather than oppose black people being treated as inferior but let white people considered inferior, how about we aim for both be treated equally?

How about we oppose racism, rather than promote it? Right now, you are trying to say "Oh, it's okay to be racist towards X" in a roundabout way.

Let me put this way.

In one corner, we have people being killed. In other corner, we have people being punched in the face. Should we tell people who are being punched in the face to shut up and consider themselves privileged that they are not being killed? Sure, it's great not to be killed, but it does not feel good that we only try to stop violence against one side. Nor will it feel very privileged to be punched in the face.

We should stop violence against both sides. Otherwise, you end up creating a large resentment, which will just end up undoing all the progress you have done.

(Note: This analogy is no way perfect, but I just made it on spot to try to show why trying to say racism towards Group X is OK, while the same racism towards Group Y is not)

edited 26th Mar '14 9:19:03 AM by Mandemo

If you want to get rid of racism than your going to need priorities.

Don't you think that prejudice being backed by a huge system of power should be on a higher priority than one that isn't?

I'm not saying we shouldn't be worried at guys getting get punched, but guys getting killed need our attention more and we should more of our resources as such. We can't just treat them like their the same problem.

If my cat was stuck in the tree and I was upset that the fire department was busy putting out a wild fire then I would be considered a entitled dweeb wouldn't I?

edited 26th Mar '14 9:31:06 AM by DrStarky

Put me in motion, drink the potion, use the lotion, drain the ocean, cause commotion, fake devotion, entertain a notion, be Nova Scotian

I don't think they're saying that. They're pointing out that even though minorities should be the main focus we still need to call out racism against white people if it does crop up. It's rare but it can happen.

edited 26th Mar '14 9:33:52 AM by kostya

I say get rid of both, since there is no more official system. It's all attitudes right now. You said my example of slavery supported real life institution?

Institution that no longer exists? Institution that, guess what, also enslaved white people under black. Yeah, I guess that surprised you. Slavery existed in much larger area than just America, where it was mostly white owners, black slaves.

In fact, did you know that the first slave owner in America was, wait for it... BLACK!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)

Anthony Johnson, Angolan, was captured and sold by Arab slavers. He was named Anthony and noted to be a negro (which, at the time, was equal to calling white people Caucasian).

Why he was not a slave? He was technically indentured servant, who by definition are legally bound to be freed once conditions for their freedom have been achieved (which might be never, might be very quickly). He merely became first legally recognized slave owner, servitude for both black and white had already exited for sometime.

Now, black masters and white slaves? Three words: Barbary Slave Trade.

So yeah. Institutions for both ways have exited, even if the one eventually died out and other survived far longer than it ever should have (should not have exited in the first place, buuuut at this point slavery was nothing new).

So, in both cases, I would actually be asking for a return of historical institution.

Both are racist. Neither should exist. Both attitudes should be eradicated. Yes, black people (and other non-white people) have it bad at the moment. Yes, we should work to improve their condition.

But we should not allow racism to fester and grow, until all the work we have done to end racism is made pointless by a new surge of racism.

edited 26th Mar '14 9:52:22 AM by Mandemo

Hold on, let's back this up a second, because I think this current argument is irrelevant.

What I want to go back to is this post. Particularly, this part:

Mandemo's statement here is what specifically led to the current debate, which I feel will go nowhere good except Misery Poker. So let me address the original post by stating something:

Mandemo, I don't know if you know it or not, but that post is what's called a deflection tactic. It deflects attention from a specific problem by asking "but what about all these other problems"? In particular, your post there contradicts the arguments you are making now, insofar as you profess that "all racism" is a problem, but at the same time, see nothing wrong with the problem above because it also happened to a White president.

Further, your original argument ignored the existence of Stereotypes. Stereotypes are specialized portrayals of a specific group based on exaggeration or misrepresentation. I place emphasis on specialized. Meaning that the portrayal of one group with a characteristic is not the same as a different group with the same ones. For example, the only white guy knowing kungfu is not a stereotype, but the only asian knowing it is. Similarly, a random anime character having blonde hair is not a stereotype, but the only white person having it is.

You cannot argue that all forms of racism are bad, no matter what, and also ignore the existence of exaggerated or misrepresented features that do not offend one group but do offend others.

edited 26th Mar '14 9:56:41 AM by KingZeal

the thing with the monkey thing is that blacks aren't the only ones called monkeys, they're just the only ones where it's seen as racist these days. as a culture we've got sayings about "monkeying around", we've got monkey bars, ect.

additionally, Blacks arn't the only ones who have been portrayed as monkeys, or at least ape-ish.

I'm baaaaaaack

The thing is that, the Irish weren't considered white at the time.

They were considered "niggers turned inside out" back then.

Put me in motion, drink the potion, use the lotion, drain the ocean, cause commotion, fake devotion, entertain a notion, be Nova Scotian

Exactly. Please remember that for a long, long time, Black people were considered inhuman ape creatures, and that's a perception that only stopped being legal about 50 years ago, and still has lingering aftereffects to this very day.

Displaying black people as apelike beasts is damaging because it's a perception that is less than 2 generations from being legally enforced.

I have said my opinion already. I don't feel there is anything that can be said. There is always a historical precedence to excuse why something is racist towards blacks, but some excuse why it's not against white (Such Irish not being considered white).

Discussion can't go anywhere, because the attitude is, from the start, "You can't be racist towards white".

Thing is, you should look at the context. Is Obama shown as ape because he is black, or for some other reason, like I said. Is he potrayed as an ape because he think he stupid, or because he is black?

That was my original point. King Zeal only quoted my first line. This was the original post, with relevant part bolded:

Bush was often treated as an ape. Dwarvin was often treated as an ape. Are we to create a Double Standard here? It's okay to show a white person as an ape, but not black people?

You realize that is how the damaging stereotypes are born? Also, I want some better information on whole "until 50 years ago black were considered inhuman animals". Sounds like hyperbole and straw man, which you are fond of accusing opposition.

edited 26th Mar '14 10:19:01 AM by Mandemo

That makes zero sense. The part you highlight is irrelevant, and don't act like I didn't link to the whole thing.

A stereotype doesn't stop being a stereotype because of intent.

edited 26th Mar '14 10:17:46 AM by KingZeal

Again, regardless of whether he meant to do so because he the president was black he was still using racist trope that's effects still linger today.

If I made a movie where the main character traveled back in time and he accidentally crashed a plane into the World Trade Center by , people would still be 100% in the right in being offend because even if it was just a coincidence, the creator should have known what a painful image that is in the context of today.

edited 26th Mar '14 10:41:31 AM by DrStarky

Put me in motion, drink the potion, use the lotion, drain the ocean, cause commotion, fake devotion, entertain a notion, be Nova Scotian

So is your argument that it was racist both times? If so, that doesn't change the fact that it was racist.

If your goal is to say no one should be portrayed as a monkey, I can agree.

If your goal is to say that both are peachy and we shouldn't make a big deal out of it, then we're back where we started.

edited 26th Mar '14 10:41:23 AM by KingZeal

nvm

edited 26th Mar '14 10:38:02 AM by DrStarky

Put me in motion, drink the potion, use the lotion, drain the ocean, cause commotion, fake devotion, entertain a notion, be Nova Scotian

As late as the 1950's, Africans were literally zoo exhibits in Europe.

edited 26th Mar '14 10:47:10 AM by DrStarky

Put me in motion, drink the potion, use the lotion, drain the ocean, cause commotion, fake devotion, entertain a notion, be Nova Scotian

Okay, that's just disgusting.

If you honestly had read my posts, you would see my argument is apply same rules to both. Either it's OK to show both sides as apes, or neither. Preferably neither.

At some point, we have to shed historical burden. Yes, there is history that makes stuff offensive. That can't be denied and we should be mindful of it. We should also not fall into trap of "It's only racists if the target is non-white".

Perhaps it's not because I am not American, but I don't equate "Black person = Monkey". Perhaps it's because I grew up in Finland and most stuff where I saw people being monkeys were when they were applied to politicians, who were predominantly white.

However, comics did occasionally still use stereotypical images of Africans and Asians, which even I realized were stupid. Perhaps because we actually had black people in my class and I was good friends with them, so I paid more attention to them than to popular culture.

edited 26th Mar '14 10:52:51 AM by Mandemo

An ideal world is not one where nobody is ever portrayed as a monkey. That's never going to happen, because a fundamental basis of comedy is offensive.

An ideal world is one where society has not dehumanized any group of people to the extent that they are being called a monkey for belonging to that group. The monkey does not exist in a vacuum. Calling someone a monkey is not inherently racist. Reinforcing a dehumanizing label that actively applies to a specific race, however, is racist.

For instance, consider the n-word. A white person calling a black person that is offensive, because it's reinforcing a racial slur that has been used by white people to subjugate and dehumanize black people, and continues to be used for that purpose to this very day. The white person may not have meant to subjugate and dehumanize the black person in that one particular instance, but that doesn't change the fact that from a white person to a black person, it's a very ugly and harmful word.

By contrast, if a black person called another black person the same word, it doesn't carry the same meaning, because while black people did contribute to the original subjugation of blacks - there were black slaveowners and African sellers of slaves - they aren't still doing it today. Blacks stopped dehumanizing each other long ago, while whites continue to treat blacks as inferior ape creatures. It's not racist because the culture of hate that it supports has been gone long enough for the wounds to heal.

Meanwhile, if a white person called another white person the same word, it doesn't carry the same meaning because it doesn't make sense. An n-word is a way of denigrating black people as subhuman ape creatures; a white person wouldn't call another white person it because it doesn't apply.

The word, in and of itself, is not inherently racist. Nothing is, in and of itself, inherently racist. The context in which it is used is what makes it racist.

We have a lot of "Black = Monkey" references in our history. In fact, a less commonly known racial slur for black people is, "Porch Monkeys", to refer to a group of African-Americans hanging out on a porch or the stoop of a building. The entire reason enslaving black people - but not white people - was considered okay in our society is because blacks were considered to be subhuman apes, to the extent that our founding fathers could unironically write the words, "All men are created equal," and still consider black people to be slaves; because black people weren't considered men, they were considered apes.

edited 26th Mar '14 11:00:32 AM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

That's 60 years ago at this point, but the point stands.

edited 26th Mar '14 11:01:45 AM by joesolo

I'm baaaaaaack

Sixty years is not that long ago. It's three generations removed at the most. That means it was still going on when people's grandparents were alive.

Exactly. There are people alive today who can remember it, and some of those people occupy important positions in our business and political worlds.

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

Let me also add that being from a different culture/country should explicitly make you want to learn more about why something is offenive, instead of dimissing it as not offensive because you don't get it or because it's not familiar.

I'm not from Finland, but I bet you there's plenty of shit I could do that would piss off the Finnish because I didn't bother checking with them first. Being ignorant of a culture isn't an excuse for racism; in fact, being ignorant is the most common form of racism.

edited 26th Mar '14 11:55:39 AM by KingZeal

Exactly.

This is why I made the distinction between racial discrimination in America vs. Ireland.

I have been called a M*** here in America. It doesn't have the same weight here as it does when I was called it in England. That doesn't make it good or okay.

But being called that by the average American is close to being punched because most of them don't know just how vile that name is. But the average British person because of our history does know just how vile that name is and therefore it's a stab with a knife instead.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

I have no clue what the M-word is. I suppose this shows just how uncommon prejudice against white people is in America based on ethnicity.

"Mick", presumably.

Schild und Schwert der Partei