NYC's Hunter College has coursework in “the abolition of whiteness.”

[MizMolly]

Apparently you've already forgotten how you blatantly made excuses for violence and torture.

I never did that. But its funny how you ignored 100 plus years of violence and torture to promote a racist lie.

Unlike you, I'm not obsessed with the past. Namely because I live in the present.

Oh, and it's not a lie at all. Of course, you know that already.

It is a lie and we all know it. I live in the present and have the intelligence to know how the past impacts today. I am not some fucked in the head white racist asshole who uses the that was in the past line only as an excuse to deny the truth when it shows how whites have fucked up

So you are telling me that the SA farm invasions are all just made up stories, huh?

Wow. That's a new depth you've just sunken to.

This thread is not about SA. The story of white genocide in South Africa is a lie. The story about farm invasions was a lie since blacks died. At least 19,000 people were killed overall in south Africa at least 90 percent of them black, only 74 white farers were killed. So the story is a lie, and your rants ignored the 100 plus years of murder, torture and killing whites did to blacks that you excused with that punk ass line about the past.

Nobody is excusing the horrors that black slaves suffered, or that blacks suffered after slavery. What a lot of whites are saying is that we are not responsible for it but you think we are. WTF is it you really want? You want whites dead? You want whites to do what exactly?

 

[IM2]

I doubt that happens.

You doubt that WHAT happens? That you can go to a specialty DNA service with deep databases in Africa (like the link I gave you) and FIND your roots for less than $150 and stop blaming white people for not knowing? It most likely WOULD happen. Because the African countries are relatively stable DNA going back many hundred years. You'd AT LEAST get a damn good estimate of country of origin and few VERY CLOSE 3rd to 5th cousins if not closer. Did you not know this? Could be typing to them instead of me right now and telling them how bad things are in the USA.. Didn't even go look at link I'll bet. Might mess up your sermons...

As for Obama and his paltry $15Mill.. Not hardly a Jew in America is affected by that. That's a worldwide fund for SURVIVORS.. ACTUAL PRISONERS of the Nazis.. And I don't agree with it.

The reparations I WANT is from the Czars of Russia that confined my people to remote villages, denied them rights to travel and used them for cavalry practice for over 150 years.

You need help. Me finding out my ancestry doesn't change US racial history son. We are owed by the US government. It is documented in the annals of history and history includes today. Your crying about whites being made to suffer gets no sympathy here. AND your radicalization into the stupid ideology you follow is your own personal problem. You believe fake news that you have chosen to male up.

 

[IM2]

Because backs and whites have not had the same experiences.

So then "whiteness" is merely not having black experiences and "blackness" is not having white experiences? What if a black person does not have the black experiences you allude to, or at least not to that extent?
I have a half-black grandniece and grandnephew and one doesn't look like she has any white in her at all and the other obviously has black in him. Neither one has ever experienced racism. Does this mean they do not possess this amorphous "blackness"?

Yeah, sure. The simple fact you had to make that comment shows the difference in whiteness and blackness.

It wasn't a comment, it was a question. You know, just like your question inquiring as to what "whiteness" was. You asked what "whiteness" was and now I'm asking what "blackness" is. Well, I did the same thing you did so, in this particular case, it would appear that "whiteness" and "blackness" are the same thing.

You racists try making things like this the same but they aren't. Your niece and nephew have experienced racism...

How do you know this?

They are black but what tribe did they come from, what nation in Africa? You don't know and their black parent doesn't know.

How do you know this?

You use children as an example, ask a dumb question, talk about how they as children don't experience racism according to you,, therefore blackness and whiteness just has to be the same.

Okay. But if I am not allowed to make assumptions about blacks then you are not allowed to make assumptions about other peoples' experiences. Deal?

Unless there is a severe change in this society your niece and nephews will face racism at a very personal level.

How do you know this?

And you are not adequately prepared to teach them how to deal with it.

So what should I tell them if they do experience racism, emulate you and become angry, bitter, resentful and petty and blame all white people (including their white mother) for their experience?

Since no one has blamed all whites for anything maybe you might want to ask that question to someone who has.

You ask a bunch of dumb questions. So lets deal with the OP.

The problem with those like you is we are talking about macro level content. So instead of addressing the content at the macro level you try a rebuttal using a micro level argument rendering your comments and opinions impotent..

There are many differences between macro and micro-level theories. Micro-level focuses on individuals and their interactions.

Macro-level focuses more upon social structure, social processes and problems, and their interrelationships.

So what is whiteness? The OP was about whiteness studies. Not blackness. They aren't the same because the histories of both groups are not the same

 

[squeeze berry]

Then you must be deaf in real life, because you're one of the biggest racists on these boards.

Post a qoute from me that is racist.

Because this is what racism is not. It is not complaining about racism directed at blacks by whites. It is not the angry response to the built in disrespect of a persons humanity by the race that thinks they are superior either. It is not the animosity built up in those who have been the ones disrespected by the race that thinks they are superior. A lot of whites do not seem to understand what white racism has done and then want to quickly call racism the angry reaction, responses and animosity created by white racism.

Apparently you've already forgotten how you blatantly made excuses for violence and torture.

I never did that. But its funny how you ignored 100 plus years of violence and torture to promote a racist lie.

Unlike you, I'm not obsessed with the past. Namely because I live in the present.

Oh, and it's not a lie at all. Of course, you know that already.

It is a lie and we all know it. I live in the present and have the intelligence to know how the past impacts today. I am not some fucked in the head white racist asshole who uses the that was in the past line only as an excuse to deny the truth when it shows how whites have fucked up

meanwhile you use "the past" as a means to attempt to extort money from white people. It's profitable or potentially for you to live in the past.

 

[blastoff]

Stanford the “abolishing whiteness as a cultural identity.” Classes at Grinnell & UW-Madison confront “the problem of whiteness.” St. John’s College takes on the “depravity of whiteness"

the white race is being smothered! THE WHITE RACE IS BEING SMOTHERED!

Think I’ll have to pass on it as my schedule is pretty heavy with Return To Slavery classes next semester.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

So then "whiteness" is merely not having black experiences and "blackness" is not having white experiences? What if a black person does not have the black experiences you allude to, or at least not to that extent?
I have a half-black grandniece and grandnephew and one doesn't look like she has any white in her at all and the other obviously has black in him. Neither one has ever experienced racism. Does this mean they do not possess this amorphous "blackness"?

Yeah, sure. The simple fact you had to make that comment shows the difference in whiteness and blackness.

It wasn't a comment, it was a question. You know, just like your question inquiring as to what "whiteness" was. You asked what "whiteness" was and now I'm asking what "blackness" is. Well, I did the same thing you did so, in this particular case, it would appear that "whiteness" and "blackness" are the same thing.

You racists try making things like this the same but they aren't. Your niece and nephew have experienced racism...

How do you know this?

They are black but what tribe did they come from, what nation in Africa? You don't know and their black parent doesn't know.

How do you know this?

You use children as an example, ask a dumb question, talk about how they as children don't experience racism according to you,, therefore blackness and whiteness just has to be the same.

Okay. But if I am not allowed to make assumptions about blacks then you are not allowed to make assumptions about other peoples' experiences. Deal?

Unless there is a severe change in this society your niece and nephews will face racism at a very personal level.

How do you know this?

And you are not adequately prepared to teach them how to deal with it.

So what should I tell them if they do experience racism, emulate you and become angry, bitter, resentful and petty and blame all white people (including their white mother) for their experience?

Since no one has blamed all whites for anything maybe you might want to ask that question to someone who has.

You ask a bunch of dumb questions. So lets deal with the OP.

The problem with those like you is we are talking about macro level content. So instead of addressing the content at the macro level you try a rebuttal using a micro level argument rendering your comments and opinions impotent..

When I spoke from the macro level to say that some blacks are racist you pretty much told me I was full of shit. I cited a personal example on the micro level so then you retreated to make it look like I was the racist and in the wrong using the macro level history of white racism. Thus rendering your comments and opinions impotent.

There are many differences between macro and micro-level theories. Micro-level focuses on individuals and their interactions.

Macro-level focuses more upon social structure, social processes and problems, and their interrelationships.

So what is whiteness? The OP was about whiteness studies. Not blackness. They aren't the same because the histories of both groups are not the same

You were the first one to bring it up when you asked what "whiteness" was, remember?

 

[squeeze berry]

IM2 doesn't care about anyone's opinion but his/her own. You're wasting your time.

I don't listen to racists.

Then you must be deaf in real life, because you're one of the biggest racists on these boards.

Post a qoute from me that is racist.

Because this is what racism is not. It is not complaining about racism directed at blacks by whites. It is not the angry response to the built in disrespect of a persons humanity by the race that thinks they are superior either. It is not the animosity built up in those who have been the ones disrespected by the race that thinks they are superior. A lot of whites do not seem to understand what white racism has done and then want to quickly call racism the angry reaction, responses and animosity created by white racism.

Apparently you've already forgotten how you blatantly made excuses for violence and torture.

I never did that. But its funny how you ignored 100 plus years of violence and torture to promote a racist lie.

out of curiosity, what " racist lie" ?

 

[IM2]

Yeah, sure. The simple fact you had to make that comment shows the difference in whiteness and blackness.

It wasn't a comment, it was a question. You know, just like your question inquiring as to what "whiteness" was. You asked what "whiteness" was and now I'm asking what "blackness" is. Well, I did the same thing you did so, in this particular case, it would appear that "whiteness" and "blackness" are the same thing.

You racists try making things like this the same but they aren't. Your niece and nephew have experienced racism...

How do you know this?

They are black but what tribe did they come from, what nation in Africa? You don't know and their black parent doesn't know.

How do you know this?

You use children as an example, ask a dumb question, talk about how they as children don't experience racism according to you,, therefore blackness and whiteness just has to be the same.

Okay. But if I am not allowed to make assumptions about blacks then you are not allowed to make assumptions about other peoples' experiences. Deal?

Unless there is a severe change in this society your niece and nephews will face racism at a very personal level.

How do you know this?

And you are not adequately prepared to teach them how to deal with it.

So what should I tell them if they do experience racism, emulate you and become angry, bitter, resentful and petty and blame all white people (including their white mother) for their experience?

Since no one has blamed all whites for anything maybe you might want to ask that question to someone who has.

You ask a bunch of dumb questions. So lets deal with the OP.

The problem with those like you is we are talking about macro level content. So instead of addressing the content at the macro level you try a rebuttal using a micro level argument rendering your comments and opinions impotent..

When I spoke from the macro level to say that some blacks are racist you pretty much told me I was full of shit. I cited a personal example on the micro level so then you retreated to make it look like I was the racist and in the wrong using the macro level history of white racism. Thus rendering your comments and opinions impotent.

There are many differences between macro and micro-level theories. Micro-level focuses on individuals and their interactions.

Macro-level focuses more upon social structure, social processes and problems, and their interrelationships.

So what is whiteness? The OP was about whiteness studies. Not blackness. They aren't the same because the histories of both groups are not the same

You were the first one to bring it up when you asked what "whiteness" was, remember?

You have never spoke from the macro level. Some blacks is not macro level. .

 

[IM2]

Post a qoute from me that is racist.

Because this is what racism is not. It is not complaining about racism directed at blacks by whites. It is not the angry response to the built in disrespect of a persons humanity by the race that thinks they are superior either. It is not the animosity built up in those who have been the ones disrespected by the race that thinks they are superior. A lot of whites do not seem to understand what white racism has done and then want to quickly call racism the angry reaction, responses and animosity created by white racism.

Apparently you've already forgotten how you blatantly made excuses for violence and torture.

I never did that. But its funny how you ignored 100 plus years of violence and torture to promote a racist lie.

Unlike you, I'm not obsessed with the past. Namely because I live in the present.

Oh, and it's not a lie at all. Of course, you know that already.

It is a lie and we all know it. I live in the present and have the intelligence to know how the past impacts today. I am not some fucked in the head white racist asshole who uses the that was in the past line only as an excuse to deny the truth when it shows how whites have fucked up

meanwhile you use "the past" as a means to attempt to extort money from white people. It's profitable or potentially for you to live in the past.

The Teflon Theory of American History says that anything that took place over 30 years ago is Ancient History. It has Absolutely No Effect on the present. Or not much. Unless it was something good like the light bulb or the Declaration of Independence. Therefore those who make a big deal of the bad stuff in the past, like slavery, are Living in the Past and need to Get Over It.

For example:

Jim Crow laws were overturned by the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore according to Teflon Theory the Jim Crow period is now Ancient History. It has Absolutely No Effect on how White Americans alive today think and act. None whatsoever. Or not much. So racism is pretty much dead.

Instead of Jim Crow’s effect slowly weakening over time like you would expect, Teflon Theory would have you suppose that it just disappeared like magic one afternoon sometime in the late 1960s. Even though many White Americans alive now were alive back in Jim Crow times. Even though many others were brought up and shaped by those who were alive back then: parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, teachers, writers, film directors, television producers, news editors and so on.

Few sit on a mountain top to come up with their beliefs all on their own. Instead most people pretty much go along with what everyone else already believes with maybe a few twists here and there. Such beliefs come from the past.

So then why is Teflon Theory believed?

• Because of how American history is taught:
  • American history is taught as dates and people and facts that have little to do with each other. Sometimes the Effects of the the Civil War or Industrialization are studied, for example, but not so for the evil stuff – like how slavery and genocide led to present-day White American wealth, power and racism.
  • American history as taught rarely comes up to the present day. History becomes something in the past, in a book, not something we live in right now.
• Because of the needs of White American self-image:
  • White Americans want to think they are Basically Good and their society is Basically Just. Without Teflon Theory that becomes laughable since it flies in the face of history, common sense and human nature.
  • White Americans avoid honestly facing up to their past because deep down they know it is ugly. Teflon Theory acts as a guard against having to take it seriously.
• Because middle-class whites are protected from the ugly present:
  • Those who live in Apple-pie America rarely see first-hand the injustice that their comfortable lives are built on. And what injustice they do see on occasion, like black ghettos or wars on television fought overseas in their name, they have already learned to not see as injustice. But being protected from the ugly present makes the ugly past seem like another world, like it truly is ancient history with no bearing on the present.

 

[IM2]

Crying racism is the idea among white Americans that blacks see racism in every little thing, that they are looking for cases of racism. The phrase is supposed to remind you of the story of the boy who cried wolf. Blacks are seen as “whining”, as being “oversensitive”, as “having a chip on their shoulders”, as “blowing things out of proportion”, as “playing the race card”.

What is going on here is the opposite of what it seems. It is whites who are being oversensitive. You are challenging their colour-blind image of themselves. You are shaming them so they are trying to shame you back – to shut you up because they do not want to hear it, to discredit you so they do not have to admit they are racist.

They have made “racist” into such a dirty word among themselves that it is like calling them a liar. It has gone from being a description of certain kinds of acts, of lines crossed and mistakes made, to questioning their whole character, which they must then defend.

That is why they do not want to admit to racism even when it is staring them in the face. That is why their apologies come out so half-baked – because they do not want to admit to being racist in the first place.

To them racism is rare, something from the bad old days that has died out. But it did not die out – it just changed shape: from hatred to a smugness and contempt that is covered under a thick layer of politically correct words. They cannot see through their own lying words. Or do not want to.

“Crying racism” assumes that racism is rare. If you are white it is rare! So rare that it seems like blacks are just making it up. It is hard to believe in something you have never experienced, much less understand it.

Yet despite their lack of experience, despite their lack of understanding, despite their wanting to read events in a way that avoids seeing racism and admitting to it, despite all that they still think they are the best judges of when something is racist! That is what the word “oversensitive” assumes.

That makes no kind of sense. But they notice none of this. Because they do not want to notice it. Because they talk mainly just to other white people. Because they have created a vast Talking Machine of newspapers, blogs, cable news and talk radio that repeats their self-serving white point of view over and over again.

Blacks appear on their stage only as complainers and not, say, as hosts of news shows who can frame issues and report the facts they think are important, helping to keep the reporting of others honest. Because of this the injustices that blacks talk about appear unimportant and, because only blacks see them, they are merely “perceived” injustices – just black people crying racism.

 

[MizMolly]

Crying racism is the idea among white Americans that blacks see racism in every little thing, that they are looking for cases of racism. The phrase is supposed to remind you of the story of the boy who cried wolf. Blacks are seen as “whining”, as being “oversensitive”, as “having a chip on their shoulders”, as “blowing things out of proportion”, as “playing the race card”.

What is going on here is the opposite of what it seems. It is whites who are being oversensitive. You are challenging their colour-blind image of themselves. You are shaming them so they are trying to shame you back – to shut you up because they do not want to hear it, to discredit you so they do not have to admit they are racist.

They have made “racist” into such a dirty word among themselves that it is like calling them a liar. It has gone from being a description of certain kinds of acts, of lines crossed and mistakes made, to questioning their whole character, which they must then defend.

That is why they do not want to admit to racism even when it is staring them in the face. That is why their apologies come out so half-baked – because they do not want to admit to being racist in the first place.

To them racism is rare, something from the bad old days that has died out. But it did not die out – it just changed shape: from hatred to a smugness and contempt that is covered under a thick layer of politically correct words. They cannot see through their own lying words. Or do not want to.

“Crying racism” assumes that racism is rare. If you are white it is rare! So rare that it seems like blacks are just making it up. It is hard to believe in something you have never experienced, much less understand it.

Yet despite their lack of experience, despite their lack of understanding, despite their wanting to read events in a way that avoids seeing racism and admitting to it, despite all that they still think they are the best judges of when something is racist! That is what the word “oversensitive” assumes.

That makes no kind of sense. But they notice none of this. Because they do not want to notice it. Because they talk mainly just to other white people. Because they have created a vast Talking Machine of newspapers, blogs, cable news and talk radio that repeats their self-serving white point of view over and over again.

Blacks appear on their stage only as complainers and not, say, as hosts of news shows who can frame issues and report the facts they think are important, helping to keep the reporting of others honest. Because of this the injustices that blacks talk about appear unimportant and, because only blacks see them, they are merely “perceived” injustices – just black people crying racism.

YOU look for cases of racism even if they don't exist. You are the kind of person who accuses white people of being racist without proof or reason. YOU are the kind of person who thinks every time a black person is denied anything, it is because they are black, as if blacks are faultless in everything. I know there is racism, I never denied there is. Just because you don't see it on the national news, does not mean blacks are not racists toward whites. I am not talking about institutional racism, no labels, racism is racism, regardless of where it happens, by whom, how many, how often etc etc. I just don't believe most whites whine about their experiences with racism from blacks. They also don't usually excuse other whites for crimes they commit. I don't give a shit what color you are, you commit a crime, you should pay the price.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

It wasn't a comment, it was a question. You know, just like your question inquiring as to what "whiteness" was. You asked what "whiteness" was and now I'm asking what "blackness" is. Well, I did the same thing you did so, in this particular case, it would appear that "whiteness" and "blackness" are the same thing.

You racists try making things like this the same but they aren't. Your niece and nephew have experienced racism...

How do you know this?

They are black but what tribe did they come from, what nation in Africa? You don't know and their black parent doesn't know.

How do you know this?

You use children as an example, ask a dumb question, talk about how they as children don't experience racism according to you,, therefore blackness and whiteness just has to be the same.

Okay. But if I am not allowed to make assumptions about blacks then you are not allowed to make assumptions about other peoples' experiences. Deal?

Unless there is a severe change in this society your niece and nephews will face racism at a very personal level.

How do you know this?

And you are not adequately prepared to teach them how to deal with it.

So what should I tell them if they do experience racism, emulate you and become angry, bitter, resentful and petty and blame all white people (including their white mother) for their experience?

Since no one has blamed all whites for anything maybe you might want to ask that question to someone who has.

You ask a bunch of dumb questions. So lets deal with the OP.

The problem with those like you is we are talking about macro level content. So instead of addressing the content at the macro level you try a rebuttal using a micro level argument rendering your comments and opinions impotent..

When I spoke from the macro level to say that some blacks are racist you pretty much told me I was full of shit. I cited a personal example on the micro level so then you retreated to make it look like I was the racist and in the wrong using the macro level history of white racism. Thus rendering your comments and opinions impotent.

There are many differences between macro and micro-level theories. Micro-level focuses on individuals and their interactions.

Macro-level focuses more upon social structure, social processes and problems, and their interrelationships.

So what is whiteness? The OP was about whiteness studies. Not blackness. They aren't the same because the histories of both groups are not the same

You were the first one to bring it up when you asked what "whiteness" was, remember?

You have never spoke from the macro level. Some blacks is not macro level. .

In relation to individual blacks, it is. And why are you responding to this now? This was over a week ago.

 

[IM2]

You racists try making things like this the same but they aren't. Your niece and nephew have experienced racism...

How do you know this?

They are black but what tribe did they come from, what nation in Africa? You don't know and their black parent doesn't know.

How do you know this?

You use children as an example, ask a dumb question, talk about how they as children don't experience racism according to you,, therefore blackness and whiteness just has to be the same.

Okay. But if I am not allowed to make assumptions about blacks then you are not allowed to make assumptions about other peoples' experiences. Deal?

Unless there is a severe change in this society your niece and nephews will face racism at a very personal level.

How do you know this?

And you are not adequately prepared to teach them how to deal with it.

So what should I tell them if they do experience racism, emulate you and become angry, bitter, resentful and petty and blame all white people (including their white mother) for their experience?

Since no one has blamed all whites for anything maybe you might want to ask that question to someone who has.

You ask a bunch of dumb questions. So lets deal with the OP.

The problem with those like you is we are talking about macro level content. So instead of addressing the content at the macro level you try a rebuttal using a micro level argument rendering your comments and opinions impotent..

When I spoke from the macro level to say that some blacks are racist you pretty much told me I was full of shit. I cited a personal example on the micro level so then you retreated to make it look like I was the racist and in the wrong using the macro level history of white racism. Thus rendering your comments and opinions impotent.

There are many differences between macro and micro-level theories. Micro-level focuses on individuals and their interactions.

Macro-level focuses more upon social structure, social processes and problems, and their interrelationships.

So what is whiteness? The OP was about whiteness studies. Not blackness. They aren't the same because the histories of both groups are not the same

You were the first one to bring it up when you asked what "whiteness" was, remember?

You have never spoke from the macro level. Some blacks is not macro level. .

In relation to individual blacks, it is. And why are you responding to this now? This was over a week ago.

Because I felt like it. And macro level has nothing to do with individuals. You want to talk about blacks and racism at the macro level, then you must discuss racism, where it came from what it consists of, how it affects society and what would create whatever you think black racism is.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

How do you know this?

How do you know this?

Okay. But if I am not allowed to make assumptions about blacks then you are not allowed to make assumptions about other peoples' experiences. Deal?

How do you know this?

So what should I tell them if they do experience racism, emulate you and become angry, bitter, resentful and petty and blame all white people (including their white mother) for their experience?

Since no one has blamed all whites for anything maybe you might want to ask that question to someone who has.

You ask a bunch of dumb questions. So lets deal with the OP.

The problem with those like you is we are talking about macro level content. So instead of addressing the content at the macro level you try a rebuttal using a micro level argument rendering your comments and opinions impotent..

When I spoke from the macro level to say that some blacks are racist you pretty much told me I was full of shit. I cited a personal example on the micro level so then you retreated to make it look like I was the racist and in the wrong using the macro level history of white racism. Thus rendering your comments and opinions impotent.

There are many differences between macro and micro-level theories. Micro-level focuses on individuals and their interactions.

Macro-level focuses more upon social structure, social processes and problems, and their interrelationships.

So what is whiteness? The OP was about whiteness studies. Not blackness. They aren't the same because the histories of both groups are not the same

You were the first one to bring it up when you asked what "whiteness" was, remember?

You have never spoke from the macro level. Some blacks is not macro level. .

In relation to individual blacks, it is. And why are you responding to this now? This was over a week ago.

Because I felt like it. And macro level has nothing to do with individuals.

It does if you're talking about a group of individuals. Hence the words "some blacks...".

You want to talk about blacks and racism at the macro level, then you must discuss racism, where it came from what it consists of, how it affects society and what would create whatever you think black racism is.

Okay, if you want to discuss where racism came from, let's do that.

Now, I'm no expert but I will offer my thoughts on the matter. Racism stems from an inherent idea that one's group is unique and special and a fear and mistrust of other groups outside of our own that may be a threat to our uniqueness or survival. It is one of the defining characteristics of mankind and is manifested in many ways, including the two most often seen throughout history: war and conquest; enslavement.
There are examples too numerous to cite but the ones that readily come to mind the Spanish conquest of South and Central America; the wars and enslavement between the Mesoamerican tribes before that; the Roman conquests; the warring tribes in Africa, including the more recent war in Rwanda between the Hutu and Tutsi; the Holocaust; the Japanese invasion of China in the late 30s and of course the enslavement of Africans throughout the Western world.

Black racism in America stems from the same causes: fear and mistrust of whites. Sometimes it is misplaced, sometimes it is not.

 

[IM2]

Since no one has blamed all whites for anything maybe you might want to ask that question to someone who has.

You ask a bunch of dumb questions. So lets deal with the OP.

The problem with those like you is we are talking about macro level content. So instead of addressing the content at the macro level you try a rebuttal using a micro level argument rendering your comments and opinions impotent..

When I spoke from the macro level to say that some blacks are racist you pretty much told me I was full of shit. I cited a personal example on the micro level so then you retreated to make it look like I was the racist and in the wrong using the macro level history of white racism. Thus rendering your comments and opinions impotent.

There are many differences between macro and micro-level theories. Micro-level focuses on individuals and their interactions.

Macro-level focuses more upon social structure, social processes and problems, and their interrelationships.

So what is whiteness? The OP was about whiteness studies. Not blackness. They aren't the same because the histories of both groups are not the same

You were the first one to bring it up when you asked what "whiteness" was, remember?

You have never spoke from the macro level. Some blacks is not macro level. .

In relation to individual blacks, it is. And why are you responding to this now? This was over a week ago.

Because I felt like it. And macro level has nothing to do with individuals.

It does if you're talking about a group of individuals. Hence the words "some blacks...".

You want to talk about blacks and racism at the macro level, then you must discuss racism, where it came from what it consists of, how it affects society and what would create whatever you think black racism is.

Okay, if you want to discuss where racism came from, let's do that.

Now, I'm no expert but I will offer my thoughts on the matter. Racism stems from an inherent idea that one's group is unique and special and a fear and mistrust of other groups outside of our own that may be a threat to our uniqueness or survival. It is one of the defining characteristics of mankind and is manifested in many ways, including the two most often seen throughout history: war and conquest; enslavement.
There are examples too numerous to cite but the ones that readily come to mind the Spanish conquest of South and Central America; the wars and enslavement between the Mesoamerican tribes before that; the Roman conquests; the warring tribes in Africa, including the more recent war in Rwanda between the Hutu and Tutsi; the Holocaust; the Japanese invasion of China in the late 30s and of course the enslavement of Africans throughout the Western world.
Black racism in America stems from the same causes: fear and mistrust of whites. Sometimes it is misplaced, sometimes it is not.

No ghost what you call black racism doesn't stem from anything you say. You say this and ignore the years from 1641 until 1965 that blacks were either enslaved or treated as second class citizens who were denied rights by whites.

The Berlin Conference of 1884 assigned the territory to Germany as part of German East Africa, marking the beginning of the colonial era. The explorer Gustav Adolf von Götzen was the first European to significantly explore the country in 1894; he crossed from the south-east to Lake Kivu and met the king.[24][25] The Germans did not significantly alter the social structure of the country, but exerted influence by supporting the king and the existing hierarchy and delegating power to local chiefs.[26] [27] Belgian forces took control of Rwanda and Burundi in 1916, during World War I, beginning a period of more direct colonial rule.[28] Belgium ruled both Rwanda and Burundi as a League of Nations 'mandate' called Ruanda-Urundi; the Belgians also simplified and centralised the power structure,[29] and introduced large-scale projects in education, health, public works, and agricultural supervision, including new crops and improved agricultural techniques to try to reduce the incidence of famine.[30] Both the Germans and the Belgians promoted Tutsi supremacy, considering the Hutu and Tutsi different races.[31] In 1935, Belgium introduced identity cards labelling each individual as either Tutsi, Hutu, Twa or Naturalised. While it had previously been possible for particularly wealthy Hutu to become honorary Tutsi, the identity cards prevented any further movement between the classes.[32]

This is what started the problems in Rwanda.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

When I spoke from the macro level to say that some blacks are racist you pretty much told me I was full of shit. I cited a personal example on the micro level so then you retreated to make it look like I was the racist and in the wrong using the macro level history of white racism. Thus rendering your comments and opinions impotent.

You were the first one to bring it up when you asked what "whiteness" was, remember?

You have never spoke from the macro level. Some blacks is not macro level. .

In relation to individual blacks, it is. And why are you responding to this now? This was over a week ago.

Because I felt like it. And macro level has nothing to do with individuals.

It does if you're talking about a group of individuals. Hence the words "some blacks...".

You want to talk about blacks and racism at the macro level, then you must discuss racism, where it came from what it consists of, how it affects society and what would create whatever you think black racism is.

Okay, if you want to discuss where racism came from, let's do that.

Now, I'm no expert but I will offer my thoughts on the matter. Racism stems from an inherent idea that one's group is unique and special and a fear and mistrust of other groups outside of our own that may be a threat to our uniqueness or survival. It is one of the defining characteristics of mankind and is manifested in many ways, including the two most often seen throughout history: war and conquest; enslavement.
There are examples too numerous to cite but the ones that readily come to mind the Spanish conquest of South and Central America; the wars and enslavement between the Mesoamerican tribes before that; the Roman conquests; the warring tribes in Africa, including the more recent war in Rwanda between the Hutu and Tutsi; the Holocaust; the Japanese invasion of China in the late 30s and of course the enslavement of Africans throughout the Western world.
Black racism in America stems from the same causes: fear and mistrust of whites. Sometimes it is misplaced, sometimes it is not.

No ghost what you call black racism doesn't stem from anything you say. You say this and ignore the years from 1641 until 1965 that blacks were either enslaved or treated as second class citizens who were denied rights by whites.

The Berlin Conference of 1884 assigned the territory to Germany as part of German East Africa, marking the beginning of the colonial era. The explorer Gustav Adolf von Götzen was the first European to significantly explore the country in 1894; he crossed from the south-east to Lake Kivu and met the king.[24][25] The Germans did not significantly alter the social structure of the country, but exerted influence by supporting the king and the existing hierarchy and delegating power to local chiefs.[26] [27] Belgian forces took control of Rwanda and Burundi in 1916, during World War I, beginning a period of more direct colonial rule.[28] Belgium ruled both Rwanda and Burundi as a League of Nations 'mandate' called Ruanda-Urundi; the Belgians also simplified and centralised the power structure,[29] and introduced large-scale projects in education, health, public works, and agricultural supervision, including new crops and improved agricultural techniques to try to reduce the incidence of famine.[30] Both the Germans and the Belgians promoted Tutsi supremacy, considering the Hutu and Tutsi different races.[31] In 1935, Belgium introduced identity cards labelling each individual as either Tutsi, Hutu, Twa or Naturalised. While it had previously been possible for particularly wealthy Hutu to become honorary Tutsi, the identity cards prevented any further movement between the classes.[32]

This is what started the problems in Rwanda.

So you're telling me that the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa were not aware that they were the same race? That they allowed foreigners to dictate their social structure to them?

As wrong as it was for the Germans and Belgians to do what they did, obviously the Hutu thought themselves the superior tribe and chose to enjoy the advantages the whites were offering else they would have fought against their efforts. Plus, none of that excuses the Hutus and Tutsis slaughtering each other to the tune of 800,000 people killed.

 

[IM2]

You have never spoke from the macro level. Some blacks is not macro level. .

In relation to individual blacks, it is. And why are you responding to this now? This was over a week ago.

Because I felt like it. And macro level has nothing to do with individuals.

It does if you're talking about a group of individuals. Hence the words "some blacks...".

You want to talk about blacks and racism at the macro level, then you must discuss racism, where it came from what it consists of, how it affects society and what would create whatever you think black racism is.

Okay, if you want to discuss where racism came from, let's do that.

Now, I'm no expert but I will offer my thoughts on the matter. Racism stems from an inherent idea that one's group is unique and special and a fear and mistrust of other groups outside of our own that may be a threat to our uniqueness or survival. It is one of the defining characteristics of mankind and is manifested in many ways, including the two most often seen throughout history: war and conquest; enslavement.
There are examples too numerous to cite but the ones that readily come to mind the Spanish conquest of South and Central America; the wars and enslavement between the Mesoamerican tribes before that; the Roman conquests; the warring tribes in Africa, including the more recent war in Rwanda between the Hutu and Tutsi; the Holocaust; the Japanese invasion of China in the late 30s and of course the enslavement of Africans throughout the Western world.
Black racism in America stems from the same causes: fear and mistrust of whites. Sometimes it is misplaced, sometimes it is not.

No ghost what you call black racism doesn't stem from anything you say. You say this and ignore the years from 1641 until 1965 that blacks were either enslaved or treated as second class citizens who were denied rights by whites.

The Berlin Conference of 1884 assigned the territory to Germany as part of German East Africa, marking the beginning of the colonial era. The explorer Gustav Adolf von Götzen was the first European to significantly explore the country in 1894; he crossed from the south-east to Lake Kivu and met the king.[24][25] The Germans did not significantly alter the social structure of the country, but exerted influence by supporting the king and the existing hierarchy and delegating power to local chiefs.[26] [27] Belgian forces took control of Rwanda and Burundi in 1916, during World War I, beginning a period of more direct colonial rule.[28] Belgium ruled both Rwanda and Burundi as a League of Nations 'mandate' called Ruanda-Urundi; the Belgians also simplified and centralised the power structure,[29] and introduced large-scale projects in education, health, public works, and agricultural supervision, including new crops and improved agricultural techniques to try to reduce the incidence of famine.[30] Both the Germans and the Belgians promoted Tutsi supremacy, considering the Hutu and Tutsi different races.[31] In 1935, Belgium introduced identity cards labelling each individual as either Tutsi, Hutu, Twa or Naturalised. While it had previously been possible for particularly wealthy Hutu to become honorary Tutsi, the identity cards prevented any further movement between the classes.[32]

This is what started the problems in Rwanda.

So you're telling me that the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa were not aware that they were the same race? That they allowed foreigners to dictate their social structure to them?

As wrong as it was for the Germans and Belgians to do what they did, obviously the Hutu thought themselves the superior tribe and chose to enjoy the advantages the whites were offering else they would have fought against their efforts. Plus, none of that excuses the Hutus and Tutsis slaughtering each other to the tune of 800,000 people killed.

Sorry bud, but those whites had no reason to be in Africa. That's where this discussion begins and ends. Until you recognize that, we have nothing to talk about. Had those whites not done what they did there would have been no such slaughter. Stop making excuses for whites then telling me what doesn't excuse blacks..

 

[Desperado]

Really?

What is whiteness?

You tell me asswipe, you're the one that has been bitching about

 

[IM2]

Really?

What is whiteness?

You tell me asswipe, you're the one that has been bitching about

No dipshit, you go ask the OP who was whinning about it.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

In relation to individual blacks, it is. And why are you responding to this now? This was over a week ago.

Because I felt like it. And macro level has nothing to do with individuals.

It does if you're talking about a group of individuals. Hence the words "some blacks...".

You want to talk about blacks and racism at the macro level, then you must discuss racism, where it came from what it consists of, how it affects society and what would create whatever you think black racism is.

Okay, if you want to discuss where racism came from, let's do that.

Now, I'm no expert but I will offer my thoughts on the matter. Racism stems from an inherent idea that one's group is unique and special and a fear and mistrust of other groups outside of our own that may be a threat to our uniqueness or survival. It is one of the defining characteristics of mankind and is manifested in many ways, including the two most often seen throughout history: war and conquest; enslavement.
There are examples too numerous to cite but the ones that readily come to mind the Spanish conquest of South and Central America; the wars and enslavement between the Mesoamerican tribes before that; the Roman conquests; the warring tribes in Africa, including the more recent war in Rwanda between the Hutu and Tutsi; the Holocaust; the Japanese invasion of China in the late 30s and of course the enslavement of Africans throughout the Western world.
Black racism in America stems from the same causes: fear and mistrust of whites. Sometimes it is misplaced, sometimes it is not.

No ghost what you call black racism doesn't stem from anything you say. You say this and ignore the years from 1641 until 1965 that blacks were either enslaved or treated as second class citizens who were denied rights by whites.

The Berlin Conference of 1884 assigned the territory to Germany as part of German East Africa, marking the beginning of the colonial era. The explorer Gustav Adolf von Götzen was the first European to significantly explore the country in 1894; he crossed from the south-east to Lake Kivu and met the king.[24][25] The Germans did not significantly alter the social structure of the country, but exerted influence by supporting the king and the existing hierarchy and delegating power to local chiefs.[26] [27] Belgian forces took control of Rwanda and Burundi in 1916, during World War I, beginning a period of more direct colonial rule.[28] Belgium ruled both Rwanda and Burundi as a League of Nations 'mandate' called Ruanda-Urundi; the Belgians also simplified and centralised the power structure,[29] and introduced large-scale projects in education, health, public works, and agricultural supervision, including new crops and improved agricultural techniques to try to reduce the incidence of famine.[30] Both the Germans and the Belgians promoted Tutsi supremacy, considering the Hutu and Tutsi different races.[31] In 1935, Belgium introduced identity cards labelling each individual as either Tutsi, Hutu, Twa or Naturalised. While it had previously been possible for particularly wealthy Hutu to become honorary Tutsi, the identity cards prevented any further movement between the classes.[32]

This is what started the problems in Rwanda.

So you're telling me that the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa were not aware that they were the same race? That they allowed foreigners to dictate their social structure to them?

As wrong as it was for the Germans and Belgians to do what they did, obviously the Hutu thought themselves the superior tribe and chose to enjoy the advantages the whites were offering else they would have fought against their efforts. Plus, none of that excuses the Hutus and Tutsis slaughtering each other to the tune of 800,000 people killed.

Sorry bud, but those whites had no reason to be in Africa. That's where this discussion begins and ends. Until you recognize that, we have nothing to talk about.

Of course I recognize it you dimwit. Did I or did I not say it was wrong for them to do what they did?

Had those whites not done what they did there would have been no such slaughter. Stop making excuses for whites then telling me what doesn't excuse blacks..

So you're telling me that the actions of white men a hundred years ago are directly responsible for the Rwandan slaughter in 1994? You can't be so stupid as to believe that.

The rift between the two tribes dates back 400 years and was defined along class lines - the Tutsis being considered the higher class. The actions of the Germans and Belgians merely exacerbated an already established tension between the two groups. What's more, the Tutsis, rather than fight for equality for both tribes when the Belgians instituted their laws, chose instead to make use of the advantages the Belgians offered and relegate their fellow countrymen to second class citizenship.

Say what you will about the Germans and Belgians but there are absolutely no redeeming actions or choices on the part of the two tribes in this story. The Hutus chose to commit genocide on another tribe and no one forced them into it.