NYC's Hunter College has coursework in “the abolition of whiteness.”
- Thread starter basquebromance
- Start date
IM2
Diamond Member
- Mar 11, 2015
- 113,605
- 143,681
- 3,645
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
Diamond Member
- Mar 11, 2015
- 113,605
- 143,681
- 3,645
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
Gold Member
blastoff
Undocumented Reg. User
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
Gold Member
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?
Last edited:
squeeze berry
Gold Member
IM2
Diamond Member
- Mar 11, 2015
- 113,605
- 143,681
- 3,645
You have never spoke from the macro level. Some blacks is not macro level. .
IM2
Diamond Member
- Mar 11, 2015
- 113,605
- 143,681
- 3,645
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
Diamond Member
- Mar 11, 2015
- 113,605
- 143,681
- 3,645
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
Ghost of a Rider
Gold Member
IM2
Diamond Member
- Mar 11, 2015
- 113,605
- 143,681
- 3,645
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
Gold Member
It does if you're talking about a group of individuals. Hence the words "some blacks...".
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
Diamond Member
- Mar 11, 2015
- 113,605
- 143,681
- 3,645
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
Gold Member
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
Diamond Member
- Mar 11, 2015
- 113,605
- 143,681
- 3,645
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..
IM2
Diamond Member
- Mar 11, 2015
- 113,605
- 143,681
- 3,645
No dipshit, you go ask the OP who was whinning about it.
Ghost of a Rider
Gold Member
Of course I recognize it you dimwit. Did I or did I not say it was wrong for them to do what they did?
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.
Similar threads
- Locked
New Topics
-
-
Feminists ask a Female CEO why she doesn't hire all women at her company- Started by LibertyWeeps
- Replies: 2
-
Would Americans support US troops seizing and occupying Kharg Island ?- Started by yidnar
- Replies: 29
-
Roberts on personal attacks against judges: 'It's got to stop'
- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 2
-
I give Al Jazeera credit for publishing this opinion piece: 'The US-Israeli Strategy Against Iran is Working. Here is Why'- Started by DigitalDrifter
- Replies: 10
