Racism

volta.:

...because he's Chinese history/Communist/Socialism history. ;)

Just on the education front: This is a list of all the History papers I got to choose out of for this year. Now, would you rather spend $755.00 learning a general history where there's no distinction of anything because it's all just 'history,' or would you rather specialize for two-three months in a topic so you feel your money was well spent? Because I'm doing three of those papers, and would feel totally ripped off if I sat down and learned 'just history' - which sounds like a brief overview of nothing. Same goes for the 200-level papers. History isn't just history.

[hopefully some of this makes sense and that I didn't completely get the whole wrong end of the stick there!]

Whoaaa totally derped. I definitely meant Kim Jong Il. I get my Asian dictators mixed up.

Yes, history can be more specific- but applying a race to it generally doesn't make it more accurate or specific, but it quite often adds a bias to what's considered relevant. For instance, I'd rather learn about the 60s, than Black history in the 60s.

lovecraft:

Whoaaa totally derped. I definitely meant Kim Jong Il. I get my Asian dictators mixed up.

Yes, history can be more specific- but applying a race to it generally doesn't make it more accurate or specific, but it quite often adds a bias to what's considered relevant. For instance, I'd rather learn about the 60s, than Black history in the 60s.

But there is a difference in what is specifically relevant to the plight of the black people in America during the 1960s and every other aspect of history in the 1960s. That isn't to say that the black perspective on the civil rights movement didn't involve or affect white people, it's merely history focused through a particular lens.

I understand what you're saying to an extent, and I think "black" is kind of different than other specific history classes (like say, German history, or French history) because the way it's presented draws a division between Black American history and White American history, when we don't really do that for other groups in American history, besides perhaps Latinos.

But, I still see an important purpose for having specifically black history because a lot of white history in America has no practical application to Black people because of segregation and racism. You don't learn about Black culture when you talk about the roaring twenties in American history because black people didn't get to experience that prosperity- their historical experience was much different and doesn't receive the same attention because it doesn't pertain to the general concept- technological innovation- the same way white history does. Even European immigrant groups experienced a degree of prosperity, which really segregates black people from the concept entirely.

lovecraft:

*I didn't realize this before, but I hope you didn't think that last part of the History courses was directed at you. :) I didn't really separate those two parts well. :/ So, if you thought that 'you' was you, it was a general one! :) (just in case it was thought of as aimed at you).

[/I'm such a fail at responding]. :/

Quote

history can be more specific- but applying a race to it generally doesn't make it more accurate or specific

But it certainly helps to get perspectives/ideologies across. And it may not be accurate, so that's why you don't believe every word you read/are encouraged to read outside the things teachers/lecturers give you. I think specifics just help to get a foundational understanding going on to apply to the grander scheme of things. (ending here because I don't even know what to say) :)

volta.:

This is such a strange comment, I've been sitting here for ages trying to think of how to reply to it. :/ The best I can say is: learning history is about learning the differences between peoples and their pasts and how they came to be. History is about learning the movements, ideologies and everything else that shaped the world. Racism and inequality are two of the ideologies that separate people: the native coloured people and the white man coming to take over. Understanding the differences allows for a better understanding of the history. If it's just history, then how can you make the distinctions under such a broad idea? Does that even make sense? I don't even think that was the best I could sum it up as. :/

I wasn't saying that we shouldn't study the differences between different cultural groups; I actually believe that we should all learn so much more about so many more cultural groups than we already do. I just don't think history should be labeled by skin color, especially because skin color has nothing to do with the cultural background of people. Two people with black skin could be from two completely different cultures; lumping them together just seems wrong to me. Especially when you consider people often don't fit into on skin color classification. And I don't like the "white" vs "black" because there are so many intermediates anyways, and so many left out.

volta.:

And the 'black' people of American aren't allowed to have a segregated month (though I did see Mick Jagger at the White House with Obama singing the blues in celebration of the month), even though they were segregated from white Americans for a very long time? And don't white people celebrate it anyway? So it's not really segregated apart from it's name...right (which shouldn't even be a problem, because it wasn't exactly a white man's movement was it? though they were involved...but it was mostly a black man's movement)?

Other groups besides African Americans were segregated, too. The poor. The Chinese. The Japanese were put in internment camps during WW2 for crying out loud. The Irish! Any foreigner in the early twentieth century. The list goes on and on; I can acknowledge the suffering of African Americans in American History, but if we're going to celebrate them for their suffering, we should sure as hell celebrate other groups for their suffering as well, should we not? I realize that might have sounded as if I was angry; please don't take my tone that way; I'm very much just using a reflective tone.

volta.:

Okay, here: you said one and the other. If you're saying there's a black history month (one) then surely the eleven following have to be (other) which is white. So you kind of are only acknowledging two races in the world: white and black. So you kinda do view the other eleven as white (seeing as you failed to mention any other race that has a month or such of celebrations). Why should we view one as black history? Can you at least acknowledge the alienation and exploitation they suffered and the strong fight they put up to earn themselves rights in a country that would have no problem treating them like animals (I'm acknowledging the fact the North was a little bit better in their treatment compared to the South, just in case that was going to be brought up)? Why shouldn't you celebrate just a month? It's only 28 days (February right?), that's less days than any other month, so.

I don't know. By saying history is just history...it leaves out all the rest. History is never as simple as that.

There is a Black History Month. I disagree with its existence, but I do not deny it. I was also not saying that the other eleven months were "White History Months" I was only spiraling my comment off of the claim people have that "one black history month is too much when the rest are white history months?" I actually specifically said that I do not view the others as "White History Months". And I did only use two races there, but that was because I was spiraling off of the claim, and because I couldn't even begin to list the different colors. I do object to the idea of it being a white versus black argument; I was just going with that idea to make that one point.

Anyways, yes, I can completely acknowledge the suffering they had to put up with, all throughout the country at first, and especially in the South at the end. Believe me, I completely feel for the pain and suffering the people endured. But I do not feel for them more than I feel for the things the Native Americans went through, or the things any group of people went through. I naturally feel for my ancestors more than those who are not my ancestors, but I expect everyone to feel for their own ancestors more than mine or anyone elses. I'm off topic, I think. I just don't think I should be celebrating a month in the honor of their suffering if I'm not celebrating the same length of time for every other group that suffered, my ancestors included just as everyone else's are. Does that make sense? Perhaps my views would be different if my ancestors partook in slavery in any way, shape, or form. But they did not, so I feel no guilt, only sympathy (or empathy.. whichever is the one where you can't compare it to something you've experienced). And that's not to necessarily say that I think people who are descended from slaveholders should feel guilty; they weren't the ones to do the wrong, after all.

addictedsevenfold.:

I wasn't saying that we shouldn't study the differences between different cultural groups; I actually believe that we should all learn so much more about so many more cultural groups than we already do. I just don't think history should be labeled by skin color, especially because skin color has nothing to do with the cultural background of people. Two people with black skin could be from two completely different cultures; lumping them together just seems wrong to me. Especially when you consider people often don't fit into on skin color classification. And I don't like the "white" vs "black" because there are so many intermediates anyways, and so many left out.

Other groups besides African Americans were segregated, too. The poor. The Chinese. The Japanese were put in internment camps during WW2 for crying out loud. The Irish! Any foreigner in the early twentieth century. The list goes on and on; I can acknowledge the suffering of African Americans in American History, but if we're going to celebrate them for their suffering, we should sure as hell celebrate other groups for their suffering as well, should we not? I realize that might have sounded as if I was angry; please don't take my tone that way; I'm very much just using a reflective tone.

First of all, HAPPY BIRFDAY, omg, I love birthdays. If it is your birthday, idk, not everyone has their birthday proper on here, but, in any case, happy birthday, man, hope it's awesome. Or if it's not, happy... day. Yeah.

History isn't labelled by skin color, really, I mean, it is, but not so much like the connotation you're attaching to it. The reason history is categorized by skin color is (a) ease, (b) because history (people's lives) was heavily influenced by skin color and thus to pretend skin color had nothing to do with history is silly. To put them into categories like that is not to say that skin color matters now (it does but that's another discussion, don't even drag that one out) but that is colored (PUNS) that history before us, and should be seen in such a light in order to properly comprehend it. After all, can we not even pretend as if The Black Panther party was just ~~~a group of activists~~~ when it was much more and influenced by skin color and made into existence because of (discrimination of) skin color.

The poor is a sub-category which black and Chinese people can be put into. So, no at that. So much no. Especially since there were factors of race put into who was poor and who wasn't. No.

There's Black History Month, Irish-American Heritage Month, Filipino American History Month, Haitian Heritage Month, Greek-American Heritage Month, Women's History Month, Jewish American Heritage Month, LGBT History Month, South Asian Heritage Month, National American Indian Month, and some others I cbf to remember.

The history months exist - however, most schools cannot be fucked to deal with those either. My school, for example, does not acknowledge Black History Month or any others. Also because we're on a strict curriculum and time. Also peanut butter is annoying to read about.

Also, the whole 'skin color has nothing to do with the cultural aspects of people?' No, actually. Modern Black American culture is heavily influenced by slave days(from the slang to the food, man), and, do I even have to say slavery was instituted based on numerous aspects, such as skin tone. So. In that case. Skin color does have something to do with cultural aspects. sad2say.

Also Black history month does not 'lump two black people' together, unless we're strictly talking school-wise, and that's a mistake on their part. The point of Black history month is to focus on the things black people did, you know? Not 'black Americans' or 'black British' or just like that. Irish black people, African black people, American black people – they all have one thing in common and while people want to be all 'BUT INDIVIDUALS!!!!!!11111ONEoneoneone!!!1' Black people don't get a lot of representation in most schools and areas of learning, and I said most, so if you want to hold up your school as being super good about that, I don't care, go ahead, I wouldn't know, never been there.

Point is, you're not honoring someones ~~~suffering~~~ – that's stupid and gross to do, I mean really... ew. Black people have done more than just be slaves, and so have other races.

There are a lot of other things I can pick at but this is barely my conversation and I've already said too much. Secrets.

addictedsevenfold.:

I wasn't saying that we shouldn't study the differences between different cultural groups; I actually believe that we should all learn so much more about so many more cultural groups than we already do. I just don't think history should be labeled by skin color, especially because skin color has nothing to do with the cultural background of people. Two people with black skin could be from two completely different cultures; lumping them together just seems wrong to me. Especially when you consider people often don't fit into on skin color classification. And I don't like the "white" vs "black" because there are so many intermediates anyways, and so many left out.

Then you study it from race and then narrow it down to a particular ethnicity. You don't have to apply it all to one particular group of persons. And, I think I said it before(?), race is part of an ideology and it's a huge aspect of history; I just feel like it's reducing the importance race had on a lot of people. Just out on interest, (because I think you said you were Irish in previous posts?) is most of your high school education experience in America (because in your journal box thing it says the US)? Because then I have to think that maybe it's an issue which would be addressed to a curriculum, because I'm pretty sure most other schools in the world don't just focus on 'black' and 'white.'

Quote

Other groups besides African Americans were segregated, too. The poor. The Chinese. The Japanese were put in internment camps during WW2 for crying out loud. The Irish! Any foreigner in the early twentieth century. The list goes on and on; I can acknowledge the suffering of African Americans in American History, but if we're going to celebrate them for their suffering, we should sure as hell celebrate other groups for their suffering as well, should we not? I realize that might have sounded as if I was angry; please don't take my tone that way; I'm very much just using a reflective tone.

*I'm glad you said it wasn't anger, because it read that way a little ;)
But there's a difference between 'foreigner' and 'animal.' I can't say much about the poor because that's almost like a whole other ball game (in a way), or the Chinese because I myself don't know a lot about their history. And the Japanese with WW2? It was a war. Why wouldn't you do bad things to the people you're fighting against? I could point out here that two bombs were dropped on two cities which destroyed the lives of people (and, as far as I'm aware), there has been no actual justification behind it (and you can give me the generic 'saved millions of lives' justification, but that's still debatable). Also, how much of the population do those other 'foreign' groups make up? Were they uprooted from their homelands and forced into slavery and alienation for years? Did they have to fight for human rights or were they already seen as human beings but just treated poorly? Were they treated like dirt because of the colour of their skin?

Quote

And I did only use two races there, but that was because I was spiraling off of the claim, and because I couldn't even begin to list the different colors. I do object to the idea of it being a white versus black argument; I was just going with that idea to make that one point.

But if you were going to make your point, you should have mentioned other races. *I was going to type up something else here which showed what your point looked like, but as soon as I started typing, the thought just vanished from my head. :/

Quote

I naturally feel for my ancestors more than those who are not my ancestors, but I expect everyone to feel for their own ancestors more than mine or anyone elses. I'm off topic, I think. I just don't think I should be celebrating a month in the honor of their suffering if I'm not celebrating the same length of time for every other group that suffered, my ancestors included just as everyone else's are. Does that make sense?

And I guess no one's really stopping anyone from being able to make a celebration out of something. But people shouldn't be criticized for celebrating something. Especially when it's about race, I guess a lot of old hurts would arise from it and maybe a feeling of racism would be there? But I do think skin colour is important for the purpose of history (and other schools of thought that deal with inequalities and all), just like showing the differences between men and women within social history; it reads the same (in a way, different contexts and all). Why celebrate woman's day when no day is given to man? Same kind of thought, different area of social history.

Just an afterthought of sorts: in saying that we shouldn't see 'colour' in history (making distinctions and all) feels like we're making equals out of everyone in history. It feels like a historical utopia of sorts.

I'd just like to put forward that having had various history lessons in high school and university, the only topics tackled where the World Wars, Victorians, Romans, the Middle Ages, Elizabeth the First and tedious Scottish history (I can save you all a few years by telling you everything in Scottish History in a few sentences:

Scots came to Scotland from Ireland.
Scots killed the indigenous Picts.
Scots seperate into clans.
Fight all the clans!
Fight the ENGLISH.
BANNOCKBURN HELL YEAH.
Fight all the clans!
Fight the Protestant/Catholics!
Hide.
Industrial Revolution (at which point, we join with general British history))

The slave trade and race relations was spoken about in Modern Studies (Half Sociology, half Politics) and it was part of a larger study on America but that was it. I generally learned more about other aspects of history outside of a FUCK YEAH BANNOCKBURRRN atmosphere in Sociology classes.

kittenbonez:

First of all, HAPPY BIRFDAY, omg, I love birthdays. If it is your birthday, idk, not everyone has their birthday proper on here, but, in any case, happy birthday, man, hope it's awesome. Or if it's not, happy... day. Yeah.

It actually is, xD, so thank ya! I forgot Mibba did that weird balloon thing... it makes the posts so hard to read, but yeah; 18 today, it's been fun. C:

kittenbonez:

History isn't labelled by skin color, really, I mean, it is, but not so much like the connotation you're attaching to it. The reason history is categorized by skin color is (a) ease, (b) because history (people's lives) was heavily influenced by skin color and thus to pretend skin color had nothing to do with history is silly. To put them into categories like that is not to say that skin color matters now (it does but that's another discussion, don't even drag that one out) but that is colored (PUNS) that history before us, and should be seen in such a light in order to properly comprehend it. After all, can we not even pretend as if The Black Panther party was just ~~~a group of activists~~~ when it was much more and influenced by skin color and made into existence because of (discrimination of) skin color.

I get what you're saying: I'm not trying to say that skin color hasn't affected history -- that'd be just completely stupid of someone to even think. With all due respect to anyone who happens to think that. But yeah, I understand the significance of skin color throughout history, I just don't agree with labeling things as "Black History" versus "White History" (and I'm only using those two for this example, because it's a pain to try to write every race and whatnot, and because so many people seem to only look at those two anyways) because doing so does segregate things which shouldn't necessarily be segregated... if that made sense at all. xD I mean, for instance, at my school one of the "major accomplishments" our school chose to highlight was Obama being elected as President of the United States. I understand the significance of that achievement, but all everyone kept saying over and over again was how "great it is for all of black history for a black man to be elected" and so on and so on, and I just wanted to be like "really? Did we only elect him because he was black? Because I sure as hell thought we voted for him for this reason and this reason, and I sure as hell thought he was part of all of our -- American -- history, not Black History". And maybe that was just the way that my school handled it that really rubbed me the wrong way, but that's just my experience with the month, really.

kittenbonez:

The poor is a sub-category which black and Chinese people can be put into. So, no at that. So much no. Especially since there were factors of race put into who was poor and who wasn't. No.

...But others besides black and Chinese can be put into the category of poor, too. I understand race did have a factor, but it wasn't the whole factor. There were very much lots of poor whites that were segregated -- not in a de jure way, but a de facto way, you know? Or am I misunderstanding you?

kittenbonez:

There's Black History Month, Irish-American Heritage Month, Filipino American History Month, Haitian Heritage Month, Greek-American Heritage Month, Women's History Month, Jewish American Heritage Month, LGBT History Month, South Asian Heritage Month, National American Indian Month, and some others I cbf to remember.

The history months exist - however, most schools cannot be fucked to deal with those either. My school, for example, does not acknowledge Black History Month or any others. Also because we're on a strict curriculum and time. Also peanut butter is annoying to read about.

I suppose my issue with the 'month' isn't as much the existence of it as it is the fact that so much emphasis is put on it in things like school and television, whereas the other 'months' are not, if that makes sense. The schools I've been in just make a huge, major deal about it, and never once mention a thing about the other months... so it just irks me. My school also makes a big deal about Colon Cancer Awareness Day and but doesn't bother with any of the other cancers or major illnesses, either... and that irritates me too. World isn't fair, I got it; i'unno, it just bothers me, that's all I can really say,

kittenbonez:

Also, the whole 'skin color has nothing to do with the cultural aspects of people?' No, actually. Modern Black American culture is heavily influenced by slave days(from the slang to the food, man), and, do I even have to say slavery was instituted based on numerous aspects, such as skin tone. So. In that case. Skin color does have something to do with cultural aspects. sad2say.

I didn't mean that it had no affect, I just meant to say that it wasn't the defining characteristic. I mean, if you're looking at a world-view perspective, just picking people by skin color doesn't link them all that much, culturally, because of how many different ethnicities and cultures exist between different groups. I get that a lot of them would possibly share similar histories in certain aspects because of their skin colors, but they'd all still have so very different cultures, especially if we're talking more than just African Americans, but all throughout the world. I apologize if it sounded as if I was trying to say skin color had no affect on anything; that wasn't my intention.

kittenbonez:

Also Black history month does not 'lump two black people' together, unless we're strictly talking school-wise, and that's a mistake on their part. The point of Black history month is to focus on the things black people did, you know? Not 'black Americans' or 'black British' or just like that. Irish black people, African black people, American black people – they all have one thing in common and while people want to be all 'BUT INDIVIDUALS!!!!!!11111ONEoneoneone!!!1' Black people don't get a lot of representation in most schools and areas of learning, and I said most, so if you want to hold up your school as being super good about that, I don't care, go ahead, I wouldn't know, never been there.

I do understand what you're saying, and I think you've made a good point that I didn't consider -- I do think I'm looking at this more from a school point of view than I should have been. That said, I do still think it isn't necessarily right how much coverage it gets statewide when the other months get so little, but still. Yeah, fair point; I appreciate your input very much!

---

volta.:

Then you study it from race and then narrow it down to a particular ethnicity. You don't have to apply it all to one particular group of persons. And, I think I said it before(?), race is part of an ideology and it's a huge aspect of history; I just feel like it's reducing the importance race had on a lot of people. Just out on interest, (because I think you said you were Irish in previous posts?) is most of your high school education experience in America (because in your journal box thing it says the US)? Because then I have to think that maybe it's an issue which would be addressed to a curriculum, because I'm pretty sure most other schools in the world don't just focus on 'black' and 'white.'

Mostly it is, yes. It might very well be a curriculum issue, in which case I would dearly apologize if I was assuming it was a larger issue than it really was. I mean, the schools I've been in do teach about other cultures, I wasn't trying to say that they don't, I just meant that I don't think we do enough.

volta.:

*I'm glad you said it wasn't anger, because it read that way a little ;)
But there's a difference between 'foreigner' and 'animal.' I can't say much about the poor because that's almost like a whole other ball game (in a way), or the Chinese because I myself don't know a lot about their history. And the Japanese with WW2? It was a war. Why wouldn't you do bad things to the people you're fighting against? I could point out here that two bombs were dropped on two cities which destroyed the lives of people (and, as far as I'm aware), there has been no actual justification behind it (and you can give me the generic 'saved millions of lives' justification, but that's still debatable). Also, how much of the population do those other 'foreign' groups make up? Were they uprooted from their homelands and forced into slavery and alienation for years? Did they have to fight for human rights or were they already seen as human beings but just treated poorly? Were they treated like dirt because of the colour of their skin?

*I'm glad I specified, then. I read back over it briefly and thought it might sound worse than I meant it.
For the Japanese, I meant the Japanese Americans, the citizens that were moved into internment camps, who most certainly were not a part of the war, not the Japanese on the opposite side. xD Sorry for the confusion; I should have been more specific. And I wasn't trying to say that the alienation was equal, or that the suffering was equal, I was just trying to point out that other groups were segregated. I would like to point out that the Irish were treated like dirt just for who they were, much in the same way. They were not sold into slavery, no. But I was just trying to say that people treat others like dirt not just because they have dark skin; the nation people are from or the accent they have or the religion they are oftentimes affects things just as much as skin color. ...Not so much in slavery, but in treatment and alienation.

volta.:

But if you were going to make your point, you should have mentioned other races. *I was going to type up something else here which showed what your point looked like, but as soon as I started typing, the thought just vanished from my head. :/

I agree. You're completely right. Half of it was that I was lazy and honestly cannot begin to list every single race every time... hell, I'm not even sure what exactly is considered a race versus an ethnicity... but half of it was just going with the conversation at present. My fault there, yes.

volta.:

And I guess no one's really stopping anyone from being able to make a celebration out of something. But people shouldn't be criticized for celebrating something. Especially when it's about race, I guess a lot of old hurts would arise from it and maybe a feeling of racism would be there? But I do think skin colour is important for the purpose of history (and other schools of thought that deal with inequalities and all), just like showing the differences between men and women within social history; it reads the same (in a way, different contexts and all). Why celebrate woman's day when no day is given to man? Same kind of thought, different area of social history.

Just an afterthought of sorts: in saying that we shouldn't see 'colour' in history (making distinctions and all) feels like we're making equals out of everyone in history. It feels like a historical utopia of sorts.

I actually feel the same way towards the Woman-and-Man thing, even though I'm a Woman. But don't get me wrong, I don't think people shouldn't be able to celebrate the history -- not at all! I very much think people should celebrate the histories they have, and if that means someone that identifies themselves as Black celebrating what they consider to be Black History, then that's grand! I just don't like the idea of having everyone being told to celebrate one race's history... you know? I feel like I just spoke in circles or something. But maybe that's just me being with my authority issue, I'm just saying.

And I do think I misspoke. I don't think we should be completely blind to race or the effects of race on history, I just don't agree with generally saying "This Is White History" and "This Is Black History" (and every other race under the sun, I'm only using these two because these are the two being argued on a constant basis at my schools, so these are the two that irritate me most). I just don't like that lumping, because in a way everyone's history is everyone's, and if we're going to separate it logically, then we should be using culture or ethnicity more than skin color. That's all I was trying to say.

^ In America, "Black" history was the history of a subculture (and in some ways still is) because they weren't allowed to partake in "White" society though.

addictedsevenfold.:

But I was just trying to say that people treat others like dirt not just because they have dark skin; the nation people are from or the accent they have or the religion they are oftentimes affects things just as much as skin color. ...Not so much in slavery, but in treatment and alienation.

I guess the only thing I could say here is that accents change/develop(?) and religious belief can also alter/grow accustomed to. Skin colour is (mostly*) for life.

*use of the word mostly because you can pigment your skin if you're of darker colours/tan yourself if you're of lighter colours (though the latter wouldn't be as effective?).

addictedsevenfold.:

I just don't like the idea of having everyone being told to celebrate one race's history... you know?

I can understand what you're saying, and again I'm going to have to say: that might all depend on where you're from in the world. In New Zealand, we don't even celebrate Black History Month, I doubt a lot of the people actually know when it is (and we have a black population here).

That's all I can say! my mind is utterly fried, so don't feel like you have to reply or anything (I do understand what you're saying and where you're coming from). :)

Sheepy:

What if the verbal abuse is racially motivated? Say, someone's getting racial epithets hurled at them on the Internet, being told to 'go back' to some other country, being generally abused because of their race....would you still think that to call it bullying is a joke? That it's something a person should just walk away from and not be affected by because they should feel privileged to be able to spend that much time on a computer anyway?

Yeah, it's a joke if you're going to sit there and take it when you don't even need to be on the computer. More than likely, if you're being bullied online, it's probably on a social network or one that has such features. Those websites aren't necessities, they're extras. Besides, I've had my share of racial bullying on this site. But I removed myself from the situation. Simple as that. I didn't let it get to my head. I don't know these people for anything, and they probably don't affect my life.

Alex; schmetterling!:

And what about if someone makes a person with already-low self-esteem feel even worse about themselves with nothing but words, to the point of suicidal feelings, maybe even self-harm? Would that not be considered serious?

I was once that person (minus the suicidal thoughts). But the problem isn't what people are saying. I'm not justifying verbal abuse because it's wrong, or picking on someone, because that's what people just do. It's hard to tackle a greater mass when it comes to things like that. What people like this need is not for the world to stop putting them down. They need someone to lift them up to tell them that they are someone and something important. That's what helped me. People put me down for most of my life. They called me stupid, dumb, a bum, loser. They called me poor. Everything that deemed failure. But I didn't stop these people, and no one did. People who cared about me told me I WASN'T a bum, I wasn't stupid, and I DO have something good in my future. That's what those people need.

kafka.:

And nothing seems more racist to me than saying that events which don't affect white Westerners are non-history, somehow outside time and reality. The Holocaust, Mao or the Rwanda genocide directly implicated white Westerners - that's why they're regarded as "important" and "relevant", but when equally horrifyingly violent events happen without affecting white Westerners, they're not considered part of "history" - which makes it very easy for their perpetrators to deny them. Over 3 million Ukrainians died in 1933 because of what Ukrainians call Holodomor (literally killing by/through hunger) - a famine carefully orchestrated by the Soviet authorities. Why do we not know about this? Because it's not really history, it happened in Ukraine and didn't affect the West.

However, although I do believe all history is important, Kurtini does make a point about not being able to fit all history in a curriculum when it comes to school. The best way to handle that is to tell history that regards to the people living there (for a start) so we can see how it affects us today. Isn't that the main point of learning history? Otherwise, I don't see much of another point because what happened happened. For instance, I don't expect my Korean friend (who moved here when she was sixteen, and still barely knows English) to understand the true horrors in the history of black people in America, and how it links to what I call backwards black people today. That's my job to tell her (since she's no longer in history classes because we're about to graduate) and it helps her to understand and appreciate/ sympathize with even the slightly backwards black people more. But while in Korea, I wouldn't expect her to learn those things (although, if their population of African Americans/ Africans increase, then it will be relevant).

Racism should be obsolete by now, I mean 21st century, and there are still people being judged by the color of their skin... I'm very pale and blonde and I get called all sorts of unpleasant names by black people. And we refer to them as "black" and they get all offended. I don't care if you're black, blue, or freaking green, just respect me and you shall be respected back. Simple as that.

weird soup:

Racism should be obsolete by now, I mean 21st century, and there are still people being judged by the color of their skin... I'm very pale and blonde and I get called all sorts of unpleasant names by black people. And we refer to them as "black" and they get all offended. I don't care if you're black, blue, or freaking green, just respect me and you shall be respected back. Simple as that.

WELL. Kind of no offense and everything, but if someone does not like being called black would prefer another name, it's actually disrespect to keep calling them that - in any case, calling someone anything they wouldn't prefer and then saying something along the lines of, 'I'd like you even if you were called something else!!!!' just erases the feelings of the other person involved and makes it seem like it's actually about you when it's not even close. The way it seems is that you'd rather just get respected without actually being respectful in return because you're used to doing whatever it is you're doing.

"THE NERVE of people being offended for being called something they don't want to be called!!!!! AND THE AUDACITY of them for getting angry about it when i insist i keep calling them that!!!!" is what you sound like, p much.

There's also other things wrong with this post but, you know, no mood for it.

Kids that grow up around different types of people are rarely racist, or judgmental.

Airon:

Kids that grow up around different types of people are rarely racist, or judgmental.

Do you have studies that support this? Large cities have some of the most problems with racism, in some instances government mandated with "cracking and packing" voter and school districts.

kittenbonez:

WELL. Kind of no offense and everything, but if someone does not like being called black would prefer another name, it's actually disrespectful to keep calling them that - in any case, calling someone anything they wouldn't prefer and then saying something along the lines of, 'I'd like you even if you were called something else!!!!' just erases the feelings of the other person involved and makes it seem like it's actually about you when it's not even close. The way it seems is that you'd rather just get respected without actually being respectful in return because you're used to doing whatever it is you're doing.

"THE NERVE of people being offended for being called something they don't want to be called!!!!! AND THE AUDACITY of them for getting angry about it when i insist i keep calling them that!!!!" is what you sound like, p much.

There's also other things wrong with this post but, you know, no mood for it.

I think what she was more getting at is being politically correct is quite often ridiculous and filled with a double standard. If someone refers to black PEOPLE as black (not you, but that group of people), it's annoying when individuals get offended. Further- she's bothered by the fact that people are judged by the color of their skin. I take it that bothers you too.

As for calling someone something they don't want to be called- well, how else am I supposed to refer to a group of people who have dark colored skin, live in America and have adopted American society's behaviours? African Americans? Some people get offended by that. What about black people that aren't African Americans? Am I supposed to lump them in with "People of color"? (And I can think of no more offensive term than that, because it's racist in and of itself. To exclude white people from it is to say that white people are either better or worse, which is offensive to both groups)

Here's an idea. We all stop getting offended by people naming our race something they don't want to be called. We all stop having racial pride (because I quite honestly think being proud of your race is inane, you had absolutely no control over what color you were born, and being proud of it is as pointless as being ashamed of it), and we all stop treating people terribly on account of their race.

We are all human. We are all people. We all look the same skinless. Why on earth do so many of us treat each other terribly?

lovecraft:

As for calling someone something they don't want to be called- well, how else am I supposed to refer to a group of people who have dark colored skin, live in America and have adopted American society's behaviours? African Americans? Some people get offended by that. What about black people that aren't African Americans? Am I supposed to lump them in with "People of color"? (And I can think of no more offensive term than that, because it's racist in and of itself. To exclude white people from it is to say that white people are either better or worse, which is offensive to both groups)

How about you just call them Americans? I've never really walked down the street and felt the need to classify everyone based on their ethnicity or skin color.

And your comment about people of color isn't logical... you say it implies white people are better or worse simply be differentiating between them (which doesn't apply anywhere else in life... do I imply an apple is better than an orange simply by admitting a distinction exists? That's political correctness out of control which you seemingly just criticized), yet you see no problem with African American/black people as a term which does the same thing.

My objection with the term is that "People of color" is that it's a redundant description. What is there in common between black people and asian people that they don't have in common with white people, aside from the fact that they're not white?

lovecraft:

My objection with the term is that "People of color" is that it's a redundant description. What is there in common between black people and asian people that they don't have in common with white people, aside from the fact that they're not white?

An extremely long history of being victims to immense sufferance at the hands of white people in the form of racism, discrimination, genocide, slavery, imperialism, etc etc?

kafka.:

An extremely long history of being victims to immense sufferance at the hands of white people in the form of racism, discrimination, genocide, slavery, imperialism, etc etc?

Because they clearly never enslaved anyone?

Native Americans enslaved other tribes regularly. South America had plenty of slavery. Asians enslaved other peoples.

Racism, slavery, and discrimination are not limited to white people.

So, again, I ask: What do people who aren't white have in common (that they don't also have in common with white people) besides not being white?