Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Its an example of white on white oppression. By the way Davesalasa is signing off as SAM. I think its Tnerb.
When is racism okay?
- Thread starter Mrs.Lucysnow
- Start date
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Oppression of anyone is as bad as anyone oppressing anyone regardless of whether the oppressor is black or white. I know you would love to make the argument as you have tried to do in the past that the most egregious offenses are made by only one race (and the western atheists among them) but its bullshit.
"W.E.B. Du Bois, founder of the NAACP, and the preeminent historian on slavery in the Americas, wrote: "Any attempt to consider the attitude of the English colonies toward the African slave-trade must be prefaced by a word as to the attitude of England herself and the development of the trade in her hands."
Du Bois gives us a logical starting place for discussing racism and the legacy of slavery in America: it begins with the "Mother Country's" dominant role in the Atlantic slave trade. Before all white Europeans are lumped together with the British as colonists and slave keepers, let us consider Britain's treatment of the Irish and the Africans, and the many parallels of subjugation and enslavement to be drawn."
http://www.nde.state.ne.us/SS/irish/unit_2.html
There are also some pretty pictures of how the Irish were depicted for you to see in this link. Oh and since you seem to think that the only black person of any importance (other than those who 'act white') is Obama. W.E.B Dubois was a very prominent black historian, sociologist, activist etc. (February 23, 1868 – August 27, 1963)
"W.E.B. Du Bois, founder of the NAACP, and the preeminent historian on slavery in the Americas, wrote: "Any attempt to consider the attitude of the English colonies toward the African slave-trade must be prefaced by a word as to the attitude of England herself and the development of the trade in her hands."
Du Bois gives us a logical starting place for discussing racism and the legacy of slavery in America: it begins with the "Mother Country's" dominant role in the Atlantic slave trade. Before all white Europeans are lumped together with the British as colonists and slave keepers, let us consider Britain's treatment of the Irish and the Africans, and the many parallels of subjugation and enslavement to be drawn."
http://www.nde.state.ne.us/SS/irish/unit_2.html
There are also some pretty pictures of how the Irish were depicted for you to see in this link. Oh and since you seem to think that the only black person of any importance (other than those who 'act white') is Obama. W.E.B Dubois was a very prominent black historian, sociologist, activist etc. (February 23, 1868 – August 27, 1963)
Last edited:
So because whites also oppressed other white people, oppression equals racism? Being shown the door in a store because you are the wrong colour regardless of your other accomplishments is an entirely different kind of experience from being treated differently for being on the receiving end of the power equation.
Legitimate comparisons
That's pretty much how I felt after reading your prior response to me. Some days are just like that. That said ....
I still think you're creating an issue to facilitate your desired response.
The question of who oppresses you isn't nearly as affecting as the question of why you are oppressed.
Some people consider taxes oppressive. And regardless of whether the assertion that taxes are oppressive is legitimate or not, it's still a far different thing from being oppressed for simply being alive. Taxes affect everyone obliged to pay them. In that context, taxes transcend race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion, or any other similar specific context of oppression.
Some people hear so often about how the color of their skin, or what they have between their legs, or the gender of their sex partner makes them a horrible person that they start loathing themselves. If, for instance, you're being a bad person, one might expect you to apologize for your conduct. But I fail to see the purpose in your apologizing for being a woman. I fail to see the purpose of a black man apologizing for being black. I fail to see the purpose of a homosexual apologizing for being gay. This sort of self-loathing is extremely detrimental to the individuals who experience it.
Hutus and Tutsis, for instance. It's not a black thing, but a subdivision thereof. One should not feel compelled to apologize for being Hutu or Tutsi.
Religion is an interesting issue, because I'm split over the role of will in one's religious identification. On the surface, religion is something people have, at some point in their lives, the power to choose. But it also comes with strong indoctrination, lending a tremendous weight to that decision. Still, one should not have to apologize for being Christian. Rather, as with anyone else, one should not be surprised if they are called upon to answer and apologize for bad conduct.
You're looking at the identity of the oppressor. I'm considering the reasons someone is oppressed. I think these are two different things.
With issues of white and nonwhite in America, the protection and preservation of injustice is part of the issue of how to solve the race issue. Thus—
—part of the atmosphere of respect should account for those injustices. No, not all whites are actively racist. But whites generally still harvest the fruits of past racist offenses. This must be accounted for. The failure of many white people to recognize this problem contributes to the implicit supremacy of white people in our society. But apparently, it is unfair to account for this supremacy in discussions because it is disrespectful to whites.
It's not a matter of it being okay to disparage groups deemed presently or formerly oppressive. But at some point, I just think, They're fucking with everyone.
The problem is that there are legitimate and illegitimate criticisms to be made about any group so identified. With race issues, the complaint on behalf of white people often doesn't make that distinction. Indeed, complaints on behalf of black people don't always make that distinction. But I do not see the evidence in our sociopolitical outcomes that all things can be presumed equal.
Well, I was just responding to your point, so ... yeah.
Whatever.
I find that these statements, especially "all whites are ...", are much less frequent than the complaints and characterizations about them would suggest. Part of this goes back to whether or not the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate complaints is recognized.
I don't trust your simplification. I don't trust your characterization of the issue. It's a simple point? Rather, it's a simplification of a difficult and complex issue.
As a basic principle, sure. But, as I said, I don't trust your characterization of the issue.
I'll just say, "Sure," so as not to tax you too much by making it so complicated as to ask you to explain what looks like dishonest posting.
Well, let's revisit that topic post:
And to consider your point:
So, where are the qualifiers? Where is the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate pride? Why is it that how many blacks? Why is it that how many Hispanics? Is there no difference between black or Hispanic pride, which says, "We are just like anyone else", and white pride, which says, "We are better than everyone else"?
Or are you simply redefining white pride, so that you can feel wronged by the outcry against white supremacism?
Every group, except for whites?
Where are the qualifiers? What distinguishes the legitimate from the illegitimate? It's not there, is it, Lucy? It's a simplification, and an unreliable one at that.
It's kind of like viewing a classic nude portrait and calling it pornographic. Really? Just because the subject is nude? That's all it takes to make it pornographic? Or is the negative sexualization occurring in the critic's own context? How is it that the human body itself is so negative? How is it, to borrow a phrase, that the state in which "God made you" is so evil? Isn't there a little more to it before we reach pornography?
Likewise, isn't there a little more to it before we reach supremacism?
Oh, for heaven's sake, Lucy. Where are the distinctions? Where are the qualifiers? Nope, they're not there for you, are they? Because they're not necessary. It's a lot simpler if we just ignore the subtleties (some of which are about as subtle as a trout upside the head).
Well, not originally.
You do have a point. I could presume MZ3 too stupid to understand that such distinctions exist. I don't think he is, though. And yet the the topic post is devoid of any such distinctions. Was he just rushing through it, then? Okay, I can deal with that.
But he obviously can't tell the difference between pride meaning you don't have to apologize for being born black (e.g., "We're just like everybody else") and supremacism (e.g., "We're better than everybody else"). Doreen addressed that point, but MZ3 skipped over that part.
When were white people ever constitutionally held to be only three-fifths human? When did anyone ever twist Darwin to suggest that the position of a white person's navel indicated their inherent biological inferiority? When did nonwhite people ever justify themselves by saying it was un-Christian to teach a white man to read because it would only make him uncomfortable with being a slave? When did being one-eight, or even one drop white make you white, and thus subject to institutional and social discrimination? (See MZ3's post about when races merge.) When it comes to, "We're just like everyone else," when did white people ever have that deficit to recover from nonwhite majority authority?
Asguard raises the point of African land redistribution, and there are certainly racist aspects of that. But even still, whites don't have that psychosocial deficit to account for.
A cornerstone of such generalized arguments as you're advocating is, "All else being equal", at a point in the social evolution when that equality doesn't exist.
Lucysnow said:
That's pretty much how I felt after reading your prior response to me. Some days are just like that. That said ....
I still think you're creating an issue to facilitate your desired response.
The question of who oppresses you isn't nearly as affecting as the question of why you are oppressed.
Some people consider taxes oppressive. And regardless of whether the assertion that taxes are oppressive is legitimate or not, it's still a far different thing from being oppressed for simply being alive. Taxes affect everyone obliged to pay them. In that context, taxes transcend race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion, or any other similar specific context of oppression.
Some people hear so often about how the color of their skin, or what they have between their legs, or the gender of their sex partner makes them a horrible person that they start loathing themselves. If, for instance, you're being a bad person, one might expect you to apologize for your conduct. But I fail to see the purpose in your apologizing for being a woman. I fail to see the purpose of a black man apologizing for being black. I fail to see the purpose of a homosexual apologizing for being gay. This sort of self-loathing is extremely detrimental to the individuals who experience it.
Hutus and Tutsis, for instance. It's not a black thing, but a subdivision thereof. One should not feel compelled to apologize for being Hutu or Tutsi.
Religion is an interesting issue, because I'm split over the role of will in one's religious identification. On the surface, religion is something people have, at some point in their lives, the power to choose. But it also comes with strong indoctrination, lending a tremendous weight to that decision. Still, one should not have to apologize for being Christian. Rather, as with anyone else, one should not be surprised if they are called upon to answer and apologize for bad conduct.
You're looking at the identity of the oppressor. I'm considering the reasons someone is oppressed. I think these are two different things.
With issues of white and nonwhite in America, the protection and preservation of injustice is part of the issue of how to solve the race issue. Thus—
—part of the atmosphere of respect should account for those injustices. No, not all whites are actively racist. But whites generally still harvest the fruits of past racist offenses. This must be accounted for. The failure of many white people to recognize this problem contributes to the implicit supremacy of white people in our society. But apparently, it is unfair to account for this supremacy in discussions because it is disrespectful to whites.
It's not a matter of it being okay to disparage groups deemed presently or formerly oppressive. But at some point, I just think, They're fucking with everyone.
The problem is that there are legitimate and illegitimate criticisms to be made about any group so identified. With race issues, the complaint on behalf of white people often doesn't make that distinction. Indeed, complaints on behalf of black people don't always make that distinction. But I do not see the evidence in our sociopolitical outcomes that all things can be presumed equal.
Well, I was just responding to your point, so ... yeah.
Whatever.
I find that these statements, especially "all whites are ...", are much less frequent than the complaints and characterizations about them would suggest. Part of this goes back to whether or not the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate complaints is recognized.
I don't trust your simplification. I don't trust your characterization of the issue. It's a simple point? Rather, it's a simplification of a difficult and complex issue.
As a basic principle, sure. But, as I said, I don't trust your characterization of the issue.
I'll just say, "Sure," so as not to tax you too much by making it so complicated as to ask you to explain what looks like dishonest posting.
Well, let's revisit that topic post:
MZ3Boy84 said:
And to consider your point:
"You know its the 'all blacks are...' 'all whites are....' and on and on and on."
So, where are the qualifiers? Where is the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate pride? Why is it that how many blacks? Why is it that how many Hispanics? Is there no difference between black or Hispanic pride, which says, "We are just like anyone else", and white pride, which says, "We are better than everyone else"?
Or are you simply redefining white pride, so that you can feel wronged by the outcry against white supremacism?
Every group, except for whites?
Where are the qualifiers? What distinguishes the legitimate from the illegitimate? It's not there, is it, Lucy? It's a simplification, and an unreliable one at that.
It's kind of like viewing a classic nude portrait and calling it pornographic. Really? Just because the subject is nude? That's all it takes to make it pornographic? Or is the negative sexualization occurring in the critic's own context? How is it that the human body itself is so negative? How is it, to borrow a phrase, that the state in which "God made you" is so evil? Isn't there a little more to it before we reach pornography?
Likewise, isn't there a little more to it before we reach supremacism?
Oh, for heaven's sake, Lucy. Where are the distinctions? Where are the qualifiers? Nope, they're not there for you, are they? Because they're not necessary. It's a lot simpler if we just ignore the subtleties (some of which are about as subtle as a trout upside the head).
Well, not originally.
You do have a point. I could presume MZ3 too stupid to understand that such distinctions exist. I don't think he is, though. And yet the the topic post is devoid of any such distinctions. Was he just rushing through it, then? Okay, I can deal with that.
But he obviously can't tell the difference between pride meaning you don't have to apologize for being born black (e.g., "We're just like everybody else") and supremacism (e.g., "We're better than everybody else"). Doreen addressed that point, but MZ3 skipped over that part.
When were white people ever constitutionally held to be only three-fifths human? When did anyone ever twist Darwin to suggest that the position of a white person's navel indicated their inherent biological inferiority? When did nonwhite people ever justify themselves by saying it was un-Christian to teach a white man to read because it would only make him uncomfortable with being a slave? When did being one-eight, or even one drop white make you white, and thus subject to institutional and social discrimination? (See MZ3's post about when races merge.) When it comes to, "We're just like everyone else," when did white people ever have that deficit to recover from nonwhite majority authority?
Asguard raises the point of African land redistribution, and there are certainly racist aspects of that. But even still, whites don't have that psychosocial deficit to account for.
A cornerstone of such generalized arguments as you're advocating is, "All else being equal", at a point in the social evolution when that equality doesn't exist.
My perception of who gets bashed on sciforums.
1# Muslims, Muslims, Muslims Second place is not even close Muslims get bashed more than anybody else in Sciforums and probably also in Western society in General.
2# I think "Conservatives" are the second most bashed though not nearly as much as Muslims. As far as I am concerned there is no such thing as "conservatives" and that various ideologies in coalition that comes together under the "conservative" banner are so dissimilar that it is hard to see how they could be lumped together as conservatives. Still conservatives are the second most bashed group here as I see it.
3# Liberals ( in the American political meaning ) are the third most bashed group.
4# Israel and Israel backers.
5# US foreign policy and US foreign policy backers.
6# Theists
Muslims get Bashed the most by far, 2 through 6 are all relatively equal. Maybe I spend to much time at the political forums and don't have a proper read of bashing at Sciforums as a whole.
I see very little bashing of white people so I am not sure what you are talking about Lucy. Atheists get bashed in general society but here at Sciforums there are about 8 theist bashes for every atheist bashing.
If whites were being routinely bashed I might scream "racism". My instincts are to save my screams of racism for the defense of the most bashed. If I did not associate all this Muslim bashing with support for Israel I might scream "racism" when Israel and Jews get bashed but because the Muslim bashing is more pervasive and the Israel supporters do it I don't scream "racism" for the Israeli/Jewish side.
Atheists are underdogs and victims in general society but here at sciforums atheists are more in the role of secure, arrogant bashers of theists. Outside of Sciforums I never have been tempted poke at atheists but the theist bashing here coupled with atheists acting superior here in a fashion similar to how sects of theists act where they are the majority has led me to at times poke at the intellectual holes in the atheistic case for the intellectual superiority of atheism.
I guess I am a knee jerk reflexive under-dog backer or knee jerk devils advocate. But I think the people who scream "racism" are either the racism are like me underdog backers or they are racism victims. The reasons nobody screams "racism" when whites get bashed is because they don't get bashed often, and they are they are not underdogs.
I guess I am an unrepentant basher of bashers and I sometimes bash bashers for sport. Even bashing bashers is not really kind or polite or mature.
Last edited:
I was really shocked when I first started posting here and saw what was allowed to be said about Muslims. Not that its toned down now but at least they take a break to complain about my atheist bashing
Very sad, really. Especially when you consider that its not even seen as offensive.
Its like an account I heard of a woman discussing why she is active against racism. Her legacy from slavery is that an ancestor serveral generations removed made enough out of slavery to get all of them a Yale education.
Very sad, really. Especially when you consider that its not even seen as offensive.
tiassa said:
Its like an account I heard of a woman discussing why she is active against racism. Her legacy from slavery is that an ancestor serveral generations removed made enough out of slavery to get all of them a Yale education.
Last edited:
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
So when an Irish person's skull was compared to that of an ape or they were shown the door and denied service because they are Irish its not a form of racism?
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Tiassa: Some people hear so often about how the color of their skin, or what they have between their legs, or the gender of their sex partner makes them a horrible person that they start loathing themselves. If, for instance, you're being a bad person, one might expect you to apologize for your conduct. But I fail to see the purpose in your apologizing for being a woman. I fail to see the purpose of a black man apologizing for being black. I fail to see the purpose of a homosexual apologizing for being gay. This sort of self-loathing is extremely detrimental to the individuals who experience it.
But having to apologize for being born white person is ok?
Tiassa: You're looking at the identity of the oppressor. I'm considering the reasons someone is oppressed. I think these are two different things.
No. I don't think the identity of a person who engages in prejudice, racism or oppression matters one bit NOR the reasons. Oppression is oppression full stop or you will end up being the oppressor without realizing you have shifted roles. This is what happened with the Hutu's who were oppressed by the Tutsi's and also with the Khmer Rouge. And if you look at Janet Elliot's brown eye blue eye experiment you can see that the oppressor and oppressed changes depending on whom you believe you rightfully focus your prejudice towards. Have you ever asked yourself how a holocaust survivor can then go to Israel and oppress others? There is no worse predator than a former victim. Its interesting that there are some Jews who use the former oppression and injustices that were meted out towards them as a means to quell voices against injustices that they engage in and silence and obfuscate debate. Its a tactic Sam uses very well right here on sciforums.
Tiassa: —part of the atmosphere of respect should account for those injustices. No, not all whites are actively racist. But whites generally still harvest the fruits of past racist offenses. This must be accounted for. The failure of many white people to recognize this problem contributes to the implicit supremacy of white people in our society. But apparently, it is unfair to account for this supremacy in discussions because it is disrespectful to whites.
They must? You mean for generations after an event they must account for offenses of a system and world paradigm their forefathers existed within and so too were victims of? Hmmm. Keep in mind that a child who is raised in a racist system even if they too are born on the side of the oppressor is also a victim of this kind of thinking. You would most likely have been a klansman Tiassa if you were born into the right family at the right time. So in keeping that in mind how are they, generations after the fact and without the use of qualifiers, to account for it exactly? By feeling ashamed of themselves even if they do not engage in racism or prejudice? By constantly deferring to another because they are not worthy based on the sins of a system they did not build? Interesting. It explains to me how victims become oppressors and the oppressor can become the victim. You know its very interesting to look at some of the victims of the KR time in Cambodia. Most of them were the elites who benefited from the previous regime and so they had to pay, pay with their lives. At the end it turned out that even to oppose the KR in thought was worthy of death. Now when you look at the regime in Cambodia today they are the survivors of the KR, they were the ones with the boot in their face and now they too enjoy their power at the top. What do they do with it? They try to oppress those who oppose them. It was for this reason and this reason alone that Archbishop Tutu called for Truth and Reconciliation and not retribution and revenge against the oppressor. But I am moving too far away from the point.
You claim that its a 'failure' of many whites to understand the problem. Well that is the challenge of education and experience and debate is it not? It is in threads like MZ's that offer the opportunity to deal with how someone understands these issues. But note here that in this particular incident you mean to say that the only way to make them understand the problem is to deny them the same courtesy you would feel and injustice to deny someone of color and this is where you make the mistake. Why should anyone show any amount of respect towards someone who in turn shows the same kind of prejudice or bigotry that they say they were denied? How do you build bridges of understanding in this fashion? The answer is you don't. What you ask is for whites to forget themselves in submission and kowtow and never complain or ask about anything that concerns them. This kind of scenario only leads to backlash. All you create is more and more division and animosity and its why racism will always be a crack in the mold of civilization.
Tiassa:I'll just say, "Sure," so as not to tax you too much by making it so complicated as to ask you to explain what looks like dishonest posting.
What don't you know it when you see it? You're the one who is constantly using it against others but fail to see it in yourself and those you agree with.
Tiassa: Oh, for heaven's sake, Lucy. Where are the distinctions? Where are the qualifiers? Nope, they're not there for you, are they? Because they're not necessary.
Why are they all of a sudden necessary? They are not necessary when we speak of all whites and it seems not to be necessary when Sam speaks of all jews or westerners or even atheists or her misguided gibberish-like understanding of blacks in america. So what is the sudden need for distinctions and qualifiers? Distinctions and qualifies are what I expect from enlightened, intelligent posters not from those who are still exploring their own ideas around race, religion what have you. I expect it from people like YOU.
As for the rest of the post again you fail to see the point I am trying to make or you are purposely evading it by focusing on all world issues. We have a set of rules here on sciforums that are designed to protect ALL members right? Since we have had discussions about the treatment of muslim posters on this board, discussion in which we were in agreement, I have noticed that now that this has mostly stopped we now have some members who feel that they can characterize and lash out about others in similar fashion.
Now I ask you. Is this acceptable here on sciforums? That is all. I am not trying to discuss all of the problems relating to race in the world as there are many threads we can hash that out in. I am asking whether these rules apply to everyone or is it only intended for those groups we consider to be minority. Can you please answer that simply without pretending to go into every nuance and subtlety only to evade answering the question.
But having to apologize for being born white person is ok?
Tiassa: You're looking at the identity of the oppressor. I'm considering the reasons someone is oppressed. I think these are two different things.
No. I don't think the identity of a person who engages in prejudice, racism or oppression matters one bit NOR the reasons. Oppression is oppression full stop or you will end up being the oppressor without realizing you have shifted roles. This is what happened with the Hutu's who were oppressed by the Tutsi's and also with the Khmer Rouge. And if you look at Janet Elliot's brown eye blue eye experiment you can see that the oppressor and oppressed changes depending on whom you believe you rightfully focus your prejudice towards. Have you ever asked yourself how a holocaust survivor can then go to Israel and oppress others? There is no worse predator than a former victim. Its interesting that there are some Jews who use the former oppression and injustices that were meted out towards them as a means to quell voices against injustices that they engage in and silence and obfuscate debate. Its a tactic Sam uses very well right here on sciforums.
Tiassa: —part of the atmosphere of respect should account for those injustices. No, not all whites are actively racist. But whites generally still harvest the fruits of past racist offenses. This must be accounted for. The failure of many white people to recognize this problem contributes to the implicit supremacy of white people in our society. But apparently, it is unfair to account for this supremacy in discussions because it is disrespectful to whites.
They must? You mean for generations after an event they must account for offenses of a system and world paradigm their forefathers existed within and so too were victims of? Hmmm. Keep in mind that a child who is raised in a racist system even if they too are born on the side of the oppressor is also a victim of this kind of thinking. You would most likely have been a klansman Tiassa if you were born into the right family at the right time. So in keeping that in mind how are they, generations after the fact and without the use of qualifiers, to account for it exactly? By feeling ashamed of themselves even if they do not engage in racism or prejudice? By constantly deferring to another because they are not worthy based on the sins of a system they did not build? Interesting. It explains to me how victims become oppressors and the oppressor can become the victim. You know its very interesting to look at some of the victims of the KR time in Cambodia. Most of them were the elites who benefited from the previous regime and so they had to pay, pay with their lives. At the end it turned out that even to oppose the KR in thought was worthy of death. Now when you look at the regime in Cambodia today they are the survivors of the KR, they were the ones with the boot in their face and now they too enjoy their power at the top. What do they do with it? They try to oppress those who oppose them. It was for this reason and this reason alone that Archbishop Tutu called for Truth and Reconciliation and not retribution and revenge against the oppressor. But I am moving too far away from the point.
You claim that its a 'failure' of many whites to understand the problem. Well that is the challenge of education and experience and debate is it not? It is in threads like MZ's that offer the opportunity to deal with how someone understands these issues. But note here that in this particular incident you mean to say that the only way to make them understand the problem is to deny them the same courtesy you would feel and injustice to deny someone of color and this is where you make the mistake. Why should anyone show any amount of respect towards someone who in turn shows the same kind of prejudice or bigotry that they say they were denied? How do you build bridges of understanding in this fashion? The answer is you don't. What you ask is for whites to forget themselves in submission and kowtow and never complain or ask about anything that concerns them. This kind of scenario only leads to backlash. All you create is more and more division and animosity and its why racism will always be a crack in the mold of civilization.
Tiassa:I'll just say, "Sure," so as not to tax you too much by making it so complicated as to ask you to explain what looks like dishonest posting.
What don't you know it when you see it? You're the one who is constantly using it against others but fail to see it in yourself and those you agree with.
Tiassa: Oh, for heaven's sake, Lucy. Where are the distinctions? Where are the qualifiers? Nope, they're not there for you, are they? Because they're not necessary.
Why are they all of a sudden necessary? They are not necessary when we speak of all whites and it seems not to be necessary when Sam speaks of all jews or westerners or even atheists or her misguided gibberish-like understanding of blacks in america. So what is the sudden need for distinctions and qualifiers? Distinctions and qualifies are what I expect from enlightened, intelligent posters not from those who are still exploring their own ideas around race, religion what have you. I expect it from people like YOU.
As for the rest of the post again you fail to see the point I am trying to make or you are purposely evading it by focusing on all world issues. We have a set of rules here on sciforums that are designed to protect ALL members right? Since we have had discussions about the treatment of muslim posters on this board, discussion in which we were in agreement, I have noticed that now that this has mostly stopped we now have some members who feel that they can characterize and lash out about others in similar fashion.
Now I ask you. Is this acceptable here on sciforums? That is all. I am not trying to discuss all of the problems relating to race in the world as there are many threads we can hash that out in. I am asking whether these rules apply to everyone or is it only intended for those groups we consider to be minority. Can you please answer that simply without pretending to go into every nuance and subtlety only to evade answering the question.
Last edited:
that's an oversimplification. However much better it handled many things than it s southern neighbor, Canada has its own problems to face.
http://www.hopesite.ca/remember/history/racism_canada_1.html
Were they considered a separate race of people? Not white?
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Their skin was considered white but they were not considered equal to white Englishman nor protestant Americans. You know I would like you to answer the question I put forth to you and not evade it.
What difference does it make the color skin of an oppressor? What difference does it make the color of the Irish when they were being called 'white niggers' by those who were oppressing them? When their were signs placed that 'No Irish need apply' for housing and employment?
I find it curious that you are hung up on color or the term racism. When I noted that Cambodia is called a genocide even though the violence was Khmer on Khmer you said that this did not make any difference whatsoever.
What does it matter if they are considered a 'separate race' or not if they were treated in the same way and discriminated against in the same way as someone who was being discriminated against who was of a different race?
This is from the link I posted above:
In the 1860s, the debate among scientists about the relationship of humans to animals prompted British racists to make frequent comparisons between Irish people, Black people and apes. The Cambridge historian Charles Kingsley wrote to his wife from Ireland in 1860: "I am haunted by the human chimpanzees I saw along that hundred miles of horrible country...to see white chimpanzees is dreadful; if they were black one would not see it so much, but their skins, except where tanned by exposure, are as white as ours."
Last edited:
Well guess what Doreen. The "Equal opportunity program" is MAKING me a racist.
Not that they care.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
It seems we will all go to the gallows as racists soon enough, you, me, Galt, MZ.
Not Tiassa or Sam though. They're just fine.
I'll go down swinging cause I've really fucking had it with fucking racist laws.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
You have no idea what real racism is. The idea that giving other people the opportunity to recover from the injustices done to them is racism is ironic in the extreme.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Would you mind answering my post?
I'm a warning-carrying "racist" member. The jist of my acquired understanding is that racists/bigots suck- and we also suck when we stumble repeatedly into be confused as such. Spout spout spout... & you're out.
Well, just outed on your first strike.
Well, just outed on your first strike.
Last edited:
Your post has nothing to do with racism. Which is what your argument is about ie when is racism okay.