University to students: 'All whites are racist'

[TheMercenary]

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.

[DanaC]

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.

Originally Posted by DanaC

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.

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.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

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?

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

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?

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.

[ZenGum]

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.

[Cicero]

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.

[Shawnee123]

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."

[bluecuracao]

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

[Shawnee123]

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.

[piercehawkeye45]

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.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

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?

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

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.