Racism

  • kafka.

    kafka. (150)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    32
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    lovecraft:
    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?
    How is what Native American tribes did back in the 16th century relevant to modern day issues of slavery and racism or to modern ideas about cultural and racial identity? Of course racism, slavery and discrimination are not limited to white people, but that doesn't mean that white people haven't systematically enslaved and discriminated against POC for the last few centuries.

    Moreover, the term POC does not imply that there are absolutely no differences between the experiences of different persons of colour - it's pretty self-evident that differences in income, gender, education, etc greatly impact the way different POCs live their lives and think about their identity - what it does imply is that these people from different backgrounds and with different experiences are united by the common experience of being discriminated against by white people(s) and their products (states, cultures, laws, etc). That's an experience white people don't have - although racial discrimination is indeed not limited to white people, white people have race privilege and they've not had the experience of being systematically discriminated against because of their skin colour - but all POC have (to a greater or lesser extent).
    March 14th, 2012 at 02:59pm
  • Ayana Sioux

    Ayana Sioux (1175)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    29
    Location:
    United States
    Kurtni:
    How about you just call them Americans?Shifty I've never really walked down the street and felt the need to classify everyone based on their ethnicity or skin color.
    Honestly, that annoys me. I don't like when black people try to say they're not black because I feel they say it because of a slight feeling of inferiority when it comes to the term black. Black/ African American isn't just a race to me. It's a culture and development of that culture. If a black person doesn't fit into that culture and etc. they are still black (racially) but they are whatever culture they practice or a part of (socially. i.e., African AMERICAN, African EUROPEAN) But in the end, they're all black.
    lovecraft:
    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?
    How about I ask you this. Why do you think many people look at the treatment of people of color from white people more harshly than what other cultures did? I mean, all cultures had their share of those things, but why do you think that white people are the biggest focus when it comes to it?
    March 14th, 2012 at 11:57pm
  • lovecraft

    lovecraft (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    31
    Location:
    Canada
    ayanasioux:
    How about I ask you this. Why do you think many people look at the treatment of people of color from white people more harshly than what other cultures did? I mean, all cultures had their share of those things, but why do you think that white people are the biggest focus when it comes to it?
    Because white people were the most recent (in the first world, at any rate) slavers, and quite systematic about it.

    I'm not saying it's not horrible what happened- I'm saying the term "People of color" bothers me because it's a group designed to exclude white people. There is no difference, in my eyes, that requires a distinction be drawn between white people and everyone else.
    March 15th, 2012 at 12:14am
  • Ahhhhron

    Ahhhhron (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    30
    Location:
    United States
    white is a color
    March 15th, 2012 at 01:41am
  • lovecraft

    lovecraft (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    31
    Location:
    Canada
    The politically correct term "People of color", however, excludes white people, which I really consider counterproductive.
    March 15th, 2012 at 04:10am
  • wxyz

    wxyz (240)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    96
    Location:
    Aland Islands
    White isn't actually a colour (and neither is black), but then the skin of what we call "white people" isn't actually white, and the skin of "black people" isn't actually black either.
    March 15th, 2012 at 07:51pm
  • kittenbonez

    kittenbonez (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    27
    Location:
    United States
    lovecraft:
    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?
    Oh, God, can we just dump this 'politically correct' jargon? It's annoying as shit to see people describe a subject, topic, phrase, or word as such with the obvious attempt to discredit it with the common basis that all politics is a load of shit. I'm just tired of people calling something 'PC' to justify why they want to continue being as rude as can be. Case in point. Bring thought to the table instead of relying on societal connotations.

    What double-standard are you referring to? Are you referring to the fact white people don't get upset when they're called white? Well, golly, I dare say some black people don't get offended when they're called black. Or, we'll complicate this, and say you're referring to the fact it is frowned upon more heavily than using 'white.' IDK, man, possibly the societal connotations of 'black' make it annoying as shit to take it up, what with how 'blacks' is basically still a slur, or the fact it's not something actual black people decided to call themselves that stuck with them for centuries. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

    See, here's this thing that people tend to forget: you are allowed to offend a person once. However, for you to keep doing the same thing and getting up in arms because they're getting offended is irritating. How's about this: ask them what they'd like to be referred to, or, hey, do the round-about way and call them it, they'll correct you, and you'll get on with life. They're not going to hug you, coddle you, or whisper sweet nothings into your ear because when you offend people that's not what happens because feelings. No. Also, call people w/e you want in your head. No one cares about it, collectively refer to darker-skinned people as black. It's not important.

    What a fantastic idea! Never before have I seen someone disregard the experiences, opinions, critical thought of other people in favor of sticking 100% to their comfort zone, while the other people have to ignore all injustices done to them just so someone else can still feel like a good person! Truly revolutionary. Comedies aside, (1) I will be called whatever I want to be called – not what someone from another group thinks I should just be fine being called. Be quiet. (2) Racial pride isn't about just being born that race and, I admit, I used to think it was just nonsense as well, however, that's not the point – the point is people of certain races are still attacked just for being such a race in daily life. That's what racial pride is for. So, racial pride is more, 'I'm proud to still be standing.' (3) GREAT IDEA. I'll forward that message to stop being terrible to other races to all the bigots. It'll solve everything. Not that people have been saying that for years or anything. It's just so weird that people expect if you keep using the same method, something new will happen.

    And last, but hardly the last with it being spouted in almost every racial argument. 'WE ALL BLEED RED.' Yes, that's nice. Tell me how much we all bled red when only those who did not appear to be white were killed for just existing. Tell me how much that hurt the poor feelings of those who were exempt from it because they were white. Their feelings. So, essentially, what I'm saying is, we can go all day saying we're all human, but the fact is people are still targeted because of their race and to pretend otherwise, that things aren't so bad, or people should stop being as vocal about it is not as 'righteous' or 'fighting the good fight' as people like to think.
    lovecraft:
    The politically correct term "People of color", however, excludes white people, which I really consider counterproductive.
    Kafka's reply to you sums it up really well so... yeah. It's not counterproductive because the point isn't to include you - it's too include a group of people regularly excluded.
    March 15th, 2012 at 09:36pm
  • kafka.

    kafka. (150)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    32
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    lovecraft:
    The politically correct term "People of color", however, excludes white people, which I really consider counterproductive.
    For centuries white people have been excluding POC from schools, universities, jobs, neighbourhoods, etc etc but all that pales in comparison with the pain and anguish that being excluded from a word must cause.
    March 17th, 2012 at 01:01pm
  • fen'harel

    fen'harel (560)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    34
    Location:
    Mexico
    kafka.:
    For centuries white people have been excluding POC from schools, universities, jobs, neighbourhoods, etc etc but all that pales in comparison with the pain and anguish that being excluded from a word must cause.
    Isn't, however, clustering people into one broad category solely based on the color of their skin harmful for a group? After all, racial profiling is based off in clustering people under just the scope of their skin color.

    Excluding white people from such words that classify people denotes the concentration of power into one group, dimming the others as minorities and not as important as the dominant group.

    That's how I see it. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but I really think that this aids in empowering one group and diminishing the importance of another by just clustering them into one big broad lump.
    March 22nd, 2012 at 06:38pm
  • kafka.

    kafka. (150)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    32
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    sobre mi cadaver:
    Isn't, however, clustering people into one broad category solely based on the color of their skin harmful for a group? After all, racial profiling is based off in clustering people under just the scope of their skin color.
    How can you compare systematic, institutional racism with the efforts of a very small group of underprivileged people to claim a shared experience? Just, how does that comparison even work? On the one had you have the government with enormous power over individuals using that power to commit enormous amounts of violence against innocent individuals - on the other had you have a group of underprivileged individuals who have little power over others claiming voicing their experiences - and if they had any kind of leverage against the government and the white majority which holds most of the political power, things like racial profiling would not exist.
    Quote
    Excluding white people from such words that classify people denotes the concentration of power into one group, dimming the others as minorities and not as important as the dominant group.
    And is this not the truth? Don't white people actually hold power over minorities? I'm confused as to how refusing to admit this helps anybody.
    Quote
    That's how I see it. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but I really think that this aids in empowering one group and diminishing the importance of another by just clustering them into one big broad lump.
    What's wrong with empowering POCs?
    March 22nd, 2012 at 07:44pm
  • lovecraft

    lovecraft (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    31
    Location:
    Canada
    ^I think she means that lumping everyone who isn't white into a group diminishes their importance.
    March 23rd, 2012 at 03:35am
  • Ayana Sioux

    Ayana Sioux (1175)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    29
    Location:
    United States
    ^ I honestly don't think it's that serious. It's an old term that we have adapted and most people understand exactly why the term was used.
    March 23rd, 2012 at 10:39pm
  • fen'harel

    fen'harel (560)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    34
    Location:
    Mexico
    kafka:
    How can you compare systematic, institutional racism with the efforts of a very small group of underprivileged people to claim a shared experience? Just, how does that comparison even work? On the one had you have the government with enormous power over individuals using that power to commit enormous amounts of violence against innocent individuals - on the other had you have a group of underprivileged individuals who have little power over others claiming voicing their experiences - and if they had any kind of leverage against the government and the white majority which holds most of the political power, things like racial profiling would not exist.
    I'm not comparing them. I never in my post compared both things. What I said was that lumping everyone with this shared experience into one sole category makes their experiences less important, because it does not address the unique experience of each group; it rather clusters them as one universal experience.
    Quote
    And is this not the truth? Don't white people actually hold power over minorities? I'm confused as to how refusing to admit this helps anybody.
    I didn't say it wasn't; I said that with examples like this (the clustering of unique group experiences into one big lump) also aided in empowering white privileges.
    Quote
    What's wrong with empowering POCs?
    How did you even get that from what I wrote? Seriously?
    March 24th, 2012 at 04:24pm
  • kafka.

    kafka. (150)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    32
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    sobre mi cadaver:
    I'm not comparing them. I never in my post compared both things.
    What were you doing when you were saying that they're both based on "clustering people into one broad category solely based on the color of their skin" if you were not comparing them?
    Quote
    What I said was that lumping everyone with this shared experience into one sole category makes their experiences less important, because it does not address the unique experience of each group; it rather clusters them as one universal experience.
    But the experience of being discriminated against because of the colour of your skin really is universal to all POC?
    Quote
    I didn't say it wasn't; I said that with examples like this (the clustering of unique group experiences into one big lump) also aided in empowering white privileges.
    Racial profiling doesn't work by clustering people who share the same experiences together in one big lump, it's not an efficient way of combating terrorist attacks precisely because it ignores people's experiences and instead judges the likelihood of their committing a terrorist attack on how Middle Eastern they look (whatever that might mean). Cases of people who are not of Middle Eastern descent being victims of Islamophobia are numerous and fairly well known - Sihks are confused with Muslims especially often (e.g.).
    Quote
    How did you even get that from what I wrote? Seriously?
    What did you mean by
    Quote
    I really think that this aids in empowering one group and diminishing the importance of another by just clustering them into one big broad lump.
    if not that the term POC empowers one group of POC? How could POC claiming a shared identity for themselves which is not that of being "non-white" empower the white majority?
    March 24th, 2012 at 05:33pm
  • Katlight Sparkle

    Katlight Sparkle (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    31
    Location:
    United States
    sobre mi cadaver:
    Isn't, however, clustering people into one broad category solely based on the color of their skin harmful for a group? After all, racial profiling is based off in clustering people under just the scope of their skin color.

    Excluding white people from such words that classify people denotes the concentration of power into one group, dimming the others as minorities and not as important as the dominant group.

    That's how I see it. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but I really think that this aids in empowering one group and diminishing the importance of another by just clustering them into one big broad lump.
    It's meant to emphasize the shared experience between the groups. Because the term people of color includes vastly different people with only the common distinction of not being white, it draws attention to the fundamental role of racialization in the US. It acts as "a recognition that certain people are racialized" (i.e. white gets to be the default and the rest are 'other' and implicitly lesser) and serves as a marker of partnership by emphasizing connections (i.e. making sure that one group does not gain equal racial standing at the expense of other groups.)

    Idenifying as a person of color is merely saying that 'I as a person have experienced institutionalized racism.' And then other PoC are like, hey, us too! Which is something that white people do not, cannot relate to. It's an acknowledgement of the racialization that the white power structure came up with, and as we have to live and work within that power structure we have decided to cluster around a shared experience, not a shared skin color, not a shared history, but an experience that we have all been forced to undergo.

    Does that explain it?
    May 17th, 2012 at 06:31am
  • lovecraft

    lovecraft (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    31
    Location:
    Canada
    ^Yeah, that explains it very well- and also points out that POC completely ignore the fact that POC can be racist too, and white people can be discriminated against based on race as well. I guess I can call myself a person of colour now, because I have experienced racism and know other people who have too! Hooray!
    May 19th, 2012 at 03:35pm
  • charming.

    charming. (135)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    32
    Location:
    Australia
    lovecraft:
    ^Yeah, that explains it very well- and also points out that POC completely ignore the fact that POC can be racist too, and white people can be discriminated against based on race as well. I guess I can call myself a person of colour now, because I have experienced racism and know other people who have too! Hooray!
    If you are white, you have not experienced racism. You may have suffered a racist experience - you may have met someone who was racist, who was racist against your race, and who acted in some manner which expressed this (through words or acts.) But racism is institutional; it is about social power; it is broad and systematic. A white person in the USA, in the UK, in Australia, will not experience racism. Just as a man cannot experience sexism (but definitely can meet sexist women, or suffer from sexist acts by others.)

    Nobody is going to suggest POCs can't be racist. But them calling out "whitey" or "cracker" or - well, I can't think of more slurs, which sort of demonstrates my point here - that is not racism at work. There's no -ism in you feeling offended by someone yelling something at you. If you were denied employment, denied education, socially excluded, rejected at a housing application, passed over for promotion, or unreasonably targeted as a result of profiling by the police - all on the basis of race - that race will be a colour. Not white. Your sarcasm basically just proves how privilege has protected you from actual racism.

    You've pointed out previously that other cultures/races have committed atrocities against each other that white people perpetrated against POCs, but POCs are still living in environments of white privilege in many, many nations around the world. That's the reality of the situation. That is what they are living with. POC is not a term to hide any bad history of non-white cultures, or to demonise whiteness as inherently separate or bad: it is addressing current systematic race discrimination and marginalisation, as if affects them, today. That's what separates POCs from caucasians - that experience. If you don't understand it, maybe feel fortunate instead of labelling the label as divisive or discriminatory. It will be great when we can live in a world where it's not necessary - or, rather, simply not done - to distinguish between any skin colours. But we don't live in that world.

    Ed: I don't really like my examples preceding "that race will be a colour." Those are still individual examples of individual incidents, which aren't pointing to the broader nature which was my primary point. Of course you might, hypothetically, be denied a job by a POC on the basis of your whiteness. I definitely accept that possibility as an isolated incident which might occur. The key word in Katlight Sparkle's post, which you seemed to overlook, was "institutionalized."
    May 19th, 2012 at 07:22pm
  • Katlight Sparkle

    Katlight Sparkle (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    31
    Location:
    United States
    lovecraft:
    ^Yeah, that explains it very well- and also points out that POC completely ignore the fact that POC can be racist too, and white people can be discriminated against based on race as well. I guess I can call myself a person of colour now, because I have experienced racism and know other people who have too! Hooray!
    Uhm, nope. Nice try though!

    POCs can be prejudiced. POCs can be discriminatory against white people. But using the sociological, academic definition of racism (which is what everyone here is using) no, people of color cannot be racist.

    The term 'person of color' was invented because we were already racialized by white people. White people invented colorism and pushed it onto the rest of the world. PoCs did not choose to be racialized. People of color simply decided that they would be able to pick and define the term that they would use to identify them rather than let white people define them.
    Quote
    You've pointed out previously that other cultures/races have committed atrocities against each other that white people perpetrated against POCs,
    Ugh, this old piece of crap. I know reading history books is hard, but trying to argue, that X culture had slavery too, so X culture were used as slave is fair is the worst false equivalency.

    Europeans specifically invented and spread colorism and white supremacy as an idea in order to justify the mistreatment of slaves. They were subhuman, lesser than, etc. This was a new idea, specifically created so that Africa's people and resources could be exploited and so that it was justified.

    'Slave' does not even have a proper translation into most language of Indigenous or African tribes. Their idea of slavery would be much closer to the idea of what we called indentured servants. You would work for your master, but there was also always a chance of upward mobility. You could earn your freedom, a place in the tribe. More importantly, workers were still considered fully human and not property.

    Comparing the two isn't even apples and oranges, it's pandas and pineapples.

    [/endhistorylesson]

    Pravada, please don't take any of this as an indictment against you.your post is one hundred percent spot on. I just hate, hate the They did, so why what's so bad? trope.
    May 20th, 2012 at 02:09am
  • charming.

    charming. (135)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    32
    Location:
    Australia
    Katlight Sparkle:
    Pravda, please don't take any of this as an indictment against you.your post is one hundred percent spot on. I just hate, hate the They did, so why what's so bad? trope.
    Not at all. I agree - and appreciate the history lesson for clarification - but was pointing out that even were you to believe what lovecraft was suggesting, that does not invalidate the term as it is used today.
    May 20th, 2012 at 05:47am
  • ciao bella.

    ciao bella. (150)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    31
    Location:
    United States
    The reason I don't like the term "people of color" is because it lumps together ALL non-white people as one entity, as though there are no differences between them. For that reason, it can get really annoying from a strictly descriptive point of view. Allow me to set up a scenario. I am friends with four guys. One is hispanic, one is asian, one is black, and the last one is white. I decide to introduce them to my other friend, we'll call her Julie. Afterwards, she recalls finding my black friend attractive, so she asks me for his name. But, being the PC girl she is, she says "what was your friend's name? The person of color?" Uh, Julie... three of them were "people of color," so that's not really descriptive. It's much more descriptive for her to refer to him as my black friend, or my African-American friend, or anything that doesn't include 3/4 of that group, really.

    I mean, other than being a poor descriptor, I really have no problem with the term "people of color." If it empowers someone, then awesome. However, if I need to tell Julie which one of my friends she wants to date, then I need her to use a more specific term, or she'll end up with Matt when she really likes James. Or whatever. Very Happy
    December 28th, 2012 at 01:17pm