Like I said lookout:

Racists are now an inferior race and we need to take them out.
Racists are white...not brown...not yellow..not red. Nope...I've never met a brown racist. They are all white. They need to recognize their inferiority.


What a goat-fuck.


One of those paradoxes that I reject and give no validity to.

Well...once upon a time makes it sound an awfully long time ago Lookout. That kind of attitude is relatively recent and the socio-economic effects are still playing out. The reason discriminating against another group can be seen as a possible solution is that in order to remove the historic (and statistically still current) inequalities is to impose a control mechanism.

If some of the political parties in the UK hadn't enforced all-women shortlists in a limited set of circumstances, the number of women currently serving in Parliament would be minimal. It's still a long way from representative, but without some kind of imposed control mechanism to force change, we'd be looking (at the old rate of progress)at taking another three or four hundred years to reach something approaching parity.

This means that some women who are excellent candidates and who would have stood little chance of being able to follow that path were given that chance. The cost of their getting that chance, was that some men who'd have made excellent candidates and for whom the old system would have given them an excellent chance of being able to follow that path, were not given that chance.

The number of women in Parliament is still low compared to male participation. This means that despite the fact that some men lose out to the all-women shortlists, overall, it is still more advantageous to be male in politics.

Dana if there was a male who would have been better in a position then the people certainly receive no benefit from a servant who was selected simply due to their lack of a penis. any job selection process that takes into account anything other than someone's qualification and ability to do the job is wrong. full stop.

Lookout it's a case of changing cultural bias - the women weren't inferior but if they were up against a man the fact he did have a penis gave him a better chance.

We haven't had universal suffrage in this country for even a century yet - it takes time to change things. In fact if there had ever been a referendum on the subject we probably wouldn't have it yet.

And do remember that Star Trek (that ancient historical document) was ahead of its time with its mixed race crew. It's not all that long ago you know.

I don't care what someone else did, when, it is not my job to pay for it and I will not accept it and will fight against it.

Good okay, you fight against it. Meanwhile, other groups who've been subject to far greater discrimination are fighting against that.

I discriminate against no one and will not own shit I did not personally do.
All group-think is the same.

I am a product of my country's history, my family's history and my own personal history.

I will celebrate the culture in which I was raised and I consider myself lucky in that it was the culture my parents were raised in and that my grandparents were raised in. Before that generation the countries were different but the cultures were at least similar.

If other people want to celebrate the cultures in their history, then I wish them the pleasure of it. However I would like to continue to enjoy the things that I celebrated in childhood as well as what they celebrated, especially if their childhood was in a different country/ culture. My mantra would probably be, "Don't step on my festivals and cultural icons as I have no intention of stepping on yours," except being a Brit I'd probably add, "if you don't mind." And soddit, I am proud I was raised with manners.

But the question is: Do you believe you are a racist because you are white?

In fact, you are as white as I am (really white)...does this mean that we are really racist?

No. I absolutely refute that idea.
To me racism denotes some form of hatred or discrimination.

Sure, I do form immediate impressions on the colour of people's skin. But in the same way I make assumptions re age or dress.

If I am waiting at a bus stop and there is an old granny there, I will be pleasantly surprised if a teen of any colour lets her on first. If I am walking down the street behind two mothers side by side with pushchairs I will be pleasantly surprised if one of them has peripheral vision and drops back to let me past. In the same spirit as the above, I have found Chinese students crowd you on pavements (end up brushing your shopping bags or your shoulders) and Asian men push to the front of queues.

It's all generalisation, but I do not hate any of these people and do not feel superior to them. Sometimes I have to accept what I call manners is not the way they were raised - and that includes white Brits.

I wonder what couples who are married to a contrasting skin color think about their racism.

We weren't married but we lived in a defacto relationship for six years. My husband had darker skin than me. We both used to make jokes which people from the outside would have considered extremely racist. An example of this is if I was relaxing and he asked me to do something, I might reply by saying, "do I look black to you?" He'd usually respond by saying something like, "get off your arse you lazy palangi (white person)".

It depends on your perspective and how you feel about racist remarks. To us it was a joke and a way of accepting our differences through humour.

IMHO anyone who thinks that only whites can be racist are idiots. You obviously have never lived where the majority of people are of darker skin. My family never owned slaves. Get off your high horses and make something of yourself. Like RK has said, I think that the continual state of playing the race card is counter productive to making progress and plays into the hands of those who support racist notions. Me and my family need not suffer the injustice of race based promotion or affirmative action policies because of some historical fact. Screw that.

Manners has nothing to do with anything.
There is no need to respect an illogical idea, it is not disrespectful of any individual holding that idea.
Feeling pride in a coincidence of birth or place is illogical.
Unless you can make it logical for me, please, feel free.
Pride is for something one accomplishes, not chance.
Being born gay, Irish, Welsh, Black, Red, Green, American or Australian, tall, short, disabled, blind, etc, is nothing to be proud of.
If you do something, then you can be proud of it.

I'm not particularly proud of being white. I am proud of my northern heritage though. The reason I am proud of my northern heritage is tied up with northern culture and the sense of class pride which that usualy encompasses. Pride in your home town (as evidenced by people's tendency to support their home town in sports even if they're not a sports fan) is something which every community tries to engender in its citizens. Pride in, love of, one's home town helps to promote civic responsibility and a sense of belonging. What colour you are, to me, is irrelevant. Where you were born is not irrelevant, it speaks of where you have come from. Where you live is not irrelevant, it speaks to who you are. I identify very strongly with the town I was raised in and the town in which I now live. I identify very strongly with the class I was born into and the culture that prevailed within that class. I idenitify very strongly with my region, possibly to an even larger extent to my identification with my country. That said I identify very strongly with my country (England) and also Europe. All these things matter to me because they dictate the culture in which I was raised.

I also feel a strong sense of 'pride' in my heritage, my family's past, my class's past, my gender's past. All these things matter to me. I feel a sense of pride in the women who fought so hard so that women of my generation would be able to take part in our democratic institutions. I feel a sense of pride in those working class lads and lasses who made it possible, through their struggle, for me to have an education and access to healthcare and employment rights.

To me, class and gender are of much greater importance than skin colour...but then again the battles in my country were primarily based on class and gender, not skin colour. Although skin colour has been an issue in my country (Rivers of Blood speech and all that) and continues to be, it has never been as wide an issue as that of class. Perhaps in a country where colour was the major dividing line, those descendents of colour will look to the battles their grandparents fought and see pride in their achievements, in much the same way I look at the Tolpuddle Martyrs, the Chartists and the General Trades Union in my history.

A little under a thousand years ago, William the Conqueror razed the North to the bare soil. Remembered to posterity as The Harrowing of the North, the destruction was such that twenty years later, most of Yorkshire was still counted as 'Waste'. Well over 100,000 people were slaughtered, many more died of starvation. Animals, crops, villages, towns, all suffered. Like the Anglo-saxon kings before him, William based himself in the South. That's where the money flowed. Even when King Cotton strode the Pennines in the 18th and 19th centuries, the work may have been done in the North, but the finance flowed South. We still have something known as the North-South divide. The North is significantly poorer than the South. Opportunities for wealth creation are fewer in the North and the culture of the North is primarily working-class. I identify myself as a Northerner. These things are important to me.

Dana is pointing out here, that she is English, and I am Irish.
Well-played!!
No Irish, No Dogs!! N.I.N.A.

lol!

Ali- I was making a remark directed along the lines of: even though you are white married to a black person, you are still a racist. (According to this new definiton of racists)

I think that would be very insulting. Especially since the new policy is: Racist if white, no matter what.....

What if you are half -white? Are you half-racist? This is ridiculous. I need to get out of this thread.
uuugh.

Can you say "backlash?"

I don't know about you, but I've been pretty well told that everything in history is someway my fault, even though I wasn't there.

i'm a 33 year old straight, white male. sometimes when i look at how hard i've worked to scrape by and then get to where i am now, i think "wow, how did i have time to do that while i was busy holding back and oppressing blacks, mexicans, women, and gays?"

A one panel cartoon I saw once read "I don't know who has been oppressing you for 300 years but they must be much older than I am."

Ah ha, I see. Now we know who the oppressed really are...

I'm not oppressed, except for me oppressing myself. And this town I live in is oppressive, but it's not limited to a particular race, sex, or religion. ;)

Well it is your fault...aren't you a woman?!?
lol!

Are you proud of the raising of Atlanta, the slaughter of civilians and the scorched earth campaigns of the North as well as the killing of black confederate pows by the north instead of treating them the same as whites?
If you are proud of the positives that you had nothing to do with you must also be of the negatives, correct, or is this similar to theism where you only associate with the truths you like and disassociate with those that you do not wish to acknowledge?
It is just not logical.
You did not do any of these things.
I can see enjoying a sense of community, history, etc, but "pride", when you actually did nothing?
Makes no sense to me.
I associate with the Southern way of thinking, but in no way am proud of what the south did, nor the north. The US is comprised of both and see no sense in claiming either as my own, I was not there though my family did participate on both sides.
I do not think of myself as white, Cherokee, apache, black, Caribbean, welsh, Scottish, Irish, or anything else that I may be that I am unaware of, these are the only that I know of.
I am proud of my education, the work that I have done, relationships that I build and maintain, art that I do and have done, decisions I make, actions.
Again, please, anyone... make being proud of something other than an accomplishment logical.
Accidents are nothing to be proud of, IMO.

Pride is not always a bad thing, its a source of identity. It is just when people go over the top with pride and nationalism or have pride in pointless traits do we start to get problems.

I think you and I have two different definitions of pride, perhaps.

Possibly one could feel shame associated with the negatives in one's history instead, as long as the personal connection is roughly of equal strength as the pride in the positive aspects.

No one should carry around "shame" for historical acts unless you were directly responsible in some way.

I agree, I'm just pointing out that his statement that DanaC must be "proud" of negative aspects of her history is not accurate (leaving aside the fact that he has her heritage on the wrong continent in his examples.)

Not personal "shame," anyway. But society as a whole should be aware of historical acts, and recognize which ones shouldn't be repeated, and maybe even need to be corrected...to help the present eventually become better history, hopefully.

Even though none of us are individually responsible for what happened in history (good and bad), it's still part of what we are, because we came from it.

There are different types of pride. A parent can feel great pride in their children's achievements. Part of that will be born of their part in creating the child and raising it to make those achievements. But part of it will be a pride born of love or close association. That is a different source of pride to the personal pride one takes in one's own achievements.

The pride I feel in my heritage is born of *thinks* associating into, identifying with that heritage. What is important to me about that heritage is not connected with skin colour, but rather with cultural associations and a sense of my place in the chain. My world is not just made up of what is, but also of what has been.

After Grendel pointed this thread out to me, I sampled three pages.

What I see here is the Cellarers at their finest and most sensible.

And let us thank whatever Powers we acknowledge for the good sense of President Harker.

Psst. RK, Dana is from the north of England. Didn't those references to William the Conqueror tip you off?

For the record, it doesn't affect your arguments any.

Although it did make me think of one thing. This definition of racism, mad as it is, is specifically tailored to the USA, and generally tailored to places where there has ever been a racial supremacist structure. Has Britain had this? Better check with Dana, but if not, then great news! All the Brits here are non racist. (I don't think anti-Irish/Scottish/Welsh bigotry/repression could count, because I doubt that they could be construed as a different race.)

: ponders Australian history : oooh damn I'm such a bad guy.

Ummmm.... Hell yes.

Britain owned the world at one time via sea power. So did a number of other European countries. Including England, if we historically look at only Africa the others that come to mind are Portugal, Spain, France, Germany, Belgium, And Italy. The US was not even involved, except from an export basis in Africa (humans). But if you look around the world even the US was trying to break into the ownership/control/colonialism book in a number of countries. And least we not forget one of England’s greatest treasures, The East India Company and The area we now know as India.

http://exploringafrica.matrix.msu.ed...ialism1914.jpg

I believe the Aussie had their own problems at home:

http://www.yale.edu/gsp/colonial/abo...ralia_map.html

http://www.yale.edu/gsp/colonial/Abo...tralia_Map.jpg

Touche!

For some reason (or none at all) I was thinking in terms of a racially segregated society within the British Isles. : removes blinkers :
Good lord I have read Kipling and some similar stuff, White Man's burden and all that.

Say, Merc, do you like Kipling?


Answer: I don't know, I've never Kipled.

I think the situation in the colonies is a different matter to the situation in the UK itself. In terms of racial segregation, there was really only de facto segregation, rather than de jure segregation.

Obviously, prior to the abolition of the slave trade in britain, there were black slaves, but not in the same numbers as there were in sugar growing colonies. There would have been a few cities where large numbers of slaves would be processed, but the serving classes in the UK were the lower social orders, not imported slaves. Even then, one could be black and free, being black did not automatically confer inferior status in law.

We did, however, have laws limiting the particiation of Catholics, Jews and non-Anglican protestants, up until, I believe the 19th century.

Mostly our legal constraints on the person have historically settled onto the working classes and the very poor. And....y'know...the Irish....and women.

Within the colonies, however, we would often institute very codified and strictly hierarchical systems which would take account of racial background and class. In the British colonial mindset, the average middle-class / upper-class administrator would have far more in common with the ruling elites of the countries they governed than than the working-classes of their own culture.

It's a different history to America. Class is/was a much bigger factor in our political culture, I think.

Australia as a colony has a disgusting record as far as racism goes.

We're descended from people who thought it was ok to hunt down all the aboriginal people in Tasmania and shoot them, basically so that there were no aboriginals left alive on the island.

Of course, this is possibly the worst thing as far as cold blooded murder goes, but let's not forget the stolen generation (the systematic removal of aboriginal children from their families) and the fact that aboriginal people were not even allowed to participate in government processes (including voting) till about the 1970's.

Oh yes, when an Australian talks about racism, they're speaking from a position of experience that's for sure.

On the surface it makes good sense. I tend to agree. But I wonder about this.

What if you today are continuing to benefit from some historical act, while someone else is continuing to be a victim from the same act? Let me make up an example: If your great grandfather was a pirate who amassed great wealth by stealing it from others. You grew up in this rich family, and today you meet a descendant of one of your great grandfather's victims. You are wearing some expensive jewelry that used to belong to the family of this other guy. You didn't personally steal it, but you still posses it. Should you feel shame for that? (I think yes.)

Now change the example to something that's more of a gray area. You grew up in an old plantation in the South. Your family is one of the few that is still well off from the money generated by slave labor over a century ago. Should you feel shame that you are well off, while some of the descendants of your family's former slaves live in poverty? (I think yes, a little.)

One final example. You are the child of immigrants, living in the South. Nobody in your family even lived in this country during the time that slavery was legal. You work hard and save up enough money to buy a nice historic old house that happens to have been built by slave labor. Any shame there? (I think no.)

Why? Did I steal it? Did I do anything to possess it other than be born? Did the other guy do anything that necessarily entitles him to possess it? If it is something that is easily identifiable as historical item of significance and important to the other guy's family, then it would be an act of class to gift it to him, but certainly not necessary.
Again, why? Did I personally do anything that led these people into poverty? My guilt or feelings of discomfort are reserved for things that I have some sort of control over. I can't control what happened then, I can control what I do now. Flip it to the otherside (much smaller scale) My grandfather once invested in and owned large tracts of land where midway airport is today. He was absolutely and verifiably screwed over by a couple of individuals who became stinking wealthy and have passed that wealth on to the current generation. My grandfather never recovered financially and died penniless and had nothing to pass on. Should I have some claim to those riches? I don't think so, those were events before I was born and have no bearing ont he choices I make with my life and the opportunities I have in front of me.
absolutely not, it is just a piece of property and who built it is of little relevance except for coctail party conversation.

How does this compare to, say, things stolen by the Nazis in WWII? How about buying stolen speakers out of the back of a van? (Assuming the items in question can be verifiably traced back to the specific people they were stolen from.)

On the one hand, I feel there is definitely a statute of limitations on crime--not just a legal one, but an ethical one. But on the other, if all you did to get the expensive jewelry was to be born, then if it's returned to the rightful owner then that shouldn't really affect you either, right?

Items stolen by the Nazis? Well, if it something that has been knowingly kept in a warehouse hidden from prying eyes all these years because the owner stole it and doesn't want to give it back... i think there is an obvious case for it's return. If it something that has been out in circulation for 60 years, been bought and sold, and transferred around... well, life's a bitch and bad stuff happens to possessions in a war. move on. If the current owner feels compelled to return it, fine. if not, fine. it's just stuff.

Speakers out of a van? c'mon, i knowingly purchased something under shady circumstances. LJ may be a nice guy but if he is selling it out of a van I know i'm taking my chances.

Let's assume in this example that if it hadn't been stolen a century ago, it would be his. And you both know it, but it can't be proven in any court.

You say it would be a class act to return it. I agree. I'd go further and say there is shame in continuing to hold onto it, because it's ill gotten. I think that by continuing to hold onto it, the person is actively continuing a misdeed done by their ancestor.

I don't know where to draw the line though. I think something like paying off the descendants of the slaves would be drawing the line too far, for example.

see i feel no guilt in continuing to hold it. if i felt compelled to give it to them, so be it. but you can't make me feel guilty about holding something just because someone a long time ago stole it. i just feel every family has a skeleton in the closet and you can make yourself crazy trying to fix a wrong that occurred long before you were born.

if the other guy has spent his whole life, and his father's life without the possession and probably didn't even know it existed, why does he need it now? it has never been in his life before and he has continued to breathe up to this point.

I just remembered that I have a German army helmet from WW2 stashed in a trunk somewhere. Don't know the story of where it came from, other than my grandfather, who never served, gave it to me a while ago. Don't know where he got it. There's a good chance that who ever owned it was killed in combat and it was collected on the battlefield. Or maybe it was collected from a prisoner. Either way, it was probably taken by force. I have no problem holding on to it. Feel no guilt.

Beats me.

Just like I do not feel pride for something I have not personally done or had anything to do with nor will I accept guilt/remorse for anything I have not personally done/created including the "big picture" shit, ignorant people love to lay at the doorstep of Americans and any wealthy.

This thread has turned interesting... 'Are we responsible for our ancestors' actions?' has always been a point of indecision for me. It's against that whole 'american spirit' to take handouts, yet we feel justified if it's wealth passed down from our parents. On the other hand, we're supposedly not responsible for the sins of the father.

So we get all the benefits (i.e. wealth, social standing, nice jewelry), but don't have to suffer any of the negatives. This has always seemed a little twisted, and gives a heavy advantage to those on the upper crust of society. Sure I'm a millionaire because my dad screwed over thousands of people throughout his lifetime. Not my fault, but I'll keep the money if it's all the same to you. While this doesn't sit right, is it therefore OK to take money from that person because he didn't earn it? Not really.

So I got to thinking a few nights ago. This idea that 'I've earned everything I worked for, and I get all the credit for it,' doesn't fit logically. Let's think, did I make my car? Did I cast the iron and paint the body and set the timing, etc? On the same hand, did I invent my iPod, and build it from scratch?

Ok, so I work 40 hours a week for all the things I own, which is fair compensation for that amorphous society for what it gives me in return. So, it would logically follow that people who work 40 hours a week (if you include compensation for their time spent in college, and other training) get a fair living.

So why is it that Joe Citizen who worked 200 years ago got relatively little compensation? Because his ancestors had not yet done the work for him. He had no ipods or automobiles. It stands to reason that no one actually earns everything they get. We are all standing on the shoulders of everyone that came before us, so none of us can rightfully claim to have earned everything we were given (unless you live in the woods, built everything you own, and hunt for your food). Is this something to be ashamed about? Probably not, but it's certainly a bit bull headed to claim that I worked for what I got, and someone else who works just as hard if not harder doesn't deserve the same.

We're all getting handouts from our grandfathers, but the handouts aren't the same.

Oh quee, you are so ignorant with your "big picture" shit. ;)

Hey Merc....don't forget the English/Irish ordeal.

So let me get this straight, by the definition put forward on page one of this post, and by reading some of the people on here....I am guilty of being a racist. Because I'm of European decent.

AND I'm guilty, and should be ashamed of the Israeli, Palestinian problems because I'm descended from Polish Jews, some of who could have moved to the new country of Israel after WWII?

Holy shit! I don't know how some of you get up and eat breakfast without feeling guilty. Man, why not go all the way? I think you're responsible for Eve eating that damn apple. That's right, you are responsible for all of human history and it's fuck ups. I know it's not an original idea, the Catholic church beat me to it. So, if you're not Catholic, perhaps you should convert.

Wake up, live a day at a time, and take responsibility for your own life. Right here, right now. That's it.

This makes me livid.

I kinda wish I was enrolled in this university so that I could kick up a fuss.

Seriously, have we not atoned enough our forefathers sins?
This university suggests that all white people are prejudiced to everyone and anyone.

I am sorry that slavery happened, but i don't apologise for it.

using an example from everyday life, I am sorry that person X got robbed, but do I apologise for it?

It wasn't me who robbed you, and left you and your children penniless, and therefore put your children's and your children's children at a disadvantage.

Surely we the population at large are not racist, because we do not disadvantage the disadvantaged further, and helped the disadvantaged.

At the end of the day, the robber is the real racist.

Runaway metaphors...I hate it when that happens too..
:)