Is it racist to say "It's ok to be white"?

[ElvenKitten]

4chan recently encouraged people to put up signs saying "It's OK to white" in colleges and universities. The reaction was predictable with people calling it racist and problematic. None of these signs said it wasn't ok to be any other race or ethnicity. I'll go out on a limb and say it is ok to be white, just as it's ok be anything other than white. Bit then again this is 4chan trying to press the buttons of the easily offended.

I'd just like to see other peoples takes on this as I don't like to keep myself stuck in an echo chamber. 

[Lustful Bride]

Bit then again this is 4chan trying to press the buttons of the easily offended.

Its 4chan. They excel at causing controversy, especially when its in ways that might be hard to argue.

Its okay to be white, there is nothing wrong with it. Just like it is okay to be Hispanic, African American, Asian, etc, etc, etc. There is nothing to be ashamed of for how we are born and the way our genes decide we must look. We should all be happy with who we are and love others for who they are so long as they aren't hurting anyone.

This is all just an attempt to start fights and controversies on colleges that seem to love throwing riots lately rather than sitting and talking it over calmly and respectfully.

[Avis habilis]

Racist? No. Dishonest in that it's implying that there's been anything that could even be mistaken for a devaluation of whiteness, systemic disadvantage of white people, animosity toward pale complexion & so on, that's even in the same time zone as what people of color in the U.S. have been experiencing since, oh, I dunno, always?

Yes. Yes it is.

[ElvenKitten]

But why make a big noise over these signs? The only thing that does is embolden the white supremacists and make their arguments on "white genocide" look more credible. 

[Lustful Bride]

But why make a big noise over these signs? The only thing that does is embolden the white supremacists and make their arguments on "white genocide" look more credible.

The problem is its so vague and simple it leaves it open to be used for one way or another. Especially now where everyone has violent kneejerk reactions to anything remotely political, racial, or religious.

[ReijiTabibito]

It's also very close to a well-known pro-gay statement.  George Takei - of OG Sulu Star Trek game - made the statement some years ago when the Tennessee state legislature introduced a bill that would ban people from using the word 'gay' in schools.  Takei got on YouTube and stated that he was lending his name to help out those affected by the bill.

"It's Okay to be Takei" took off, as only something done by one of the OG Enterprise crew could.

It almost too easily opens up an argument that could be employed - "Oh, so it's okay to say that you're gay, but not that you're white?"

To a certain degree, though, that people keep falling for stupid stuff like this shows how poor some people's tolerances are and how limited their capacity to argue beyond ad hominem is.

[Skynet]

The statement on its own is non-controversial. But the subtext is that it was spread by /pol/ which has many white nationalist sentiments and the phrase is popular among said groups.

The subtext is that many hate group disguise their anti-everyone else as being pro-themselves, claiming that civil rights is a zero sum game where helping out others will result in your own rights being curtailed.

And said groups will chide others for taking it seriously, that they were just 'trolling.' But intent matters little in regards to action. When you're spreading misinformation and intimidating others who are opposite you politically, you're not trolling so much as being sincere.

I know I've posted it before, but this is a good video explaining how white supremacist groups use pedantry to divert and disguise their slogans to sound more appealing among other forms of propaganda.

Strategy 2: Euphemism at the 8:06 timestamp is most relevant.

[Lustful Bride]

The statement on its own is non-controversial. But the subtext is that it was spread by /pol/ which has many white nationalist sentiments and the phrase is popular among said groups.

The subtext is that many hate group disguise their anti-everyone else as being pro-themselves, claiming that civil rights is a zero sum game where helping out others will result in your own rights being curtailed.

And said groups will chide others for taking it seriously, that they were just 'trolling.' But intent matters little in regards to action. When you're spreading misinformation and intimidating others who are opposite you politically, you're not trolling so much as being sincere.

I know I've posted it before, but this is a good video explaining how white supremacist groups use pedantry to divert and disguise their slogans to sound more appealing among other forms of propaganda.

Strategy 2: Euphemism at the 8:06 timestamp is most relevant.

+1 I feel this is the best explanation.

[HannibalBarca]

When I was a kid, I once mentioned to my parents that there was a Mother's Day and a Father's Day; why wasn't there a children's day?

"Every day is children's day," my mother replied.

I figured out her point pretty quickly.  I wish, though, that people who complain about Black History Month or National Coming Out Month or other similar holidays would figure it out, too.

[Mathim]

Would adding, "We're no better or worse than any other groups" be better? That way there's no connotation of superiority nor implicit denigration of other ethnicities. Or is that kind of like making it into an "All Lives Matter" slogan?

[ReijiTabibito]

When I was a kid, I once mentioned to my parents that there was a Mother's Day and a Father's Day; why wasn't there a children's day?

"Every day is children's day," my mother replied.

I figured out her point pretty quickly.  I wish, though, that people who complain about Black History Month or National Coming Out Month or other similar holidays would figure it out, too.

Only a technical picky here, your major point is noted - there actually ARE holidays named Children's Day in other countries.  Japan is the most prominent one, but I think there's a couple of others, too.  And to me, that doesn't count coming-of-age ceremonies, like the bar mitzvah.

Would adding, "We're no better or worse than any other groups" be better? That way there's no connotation of superiority nor implicit denigration of other ethnicities. Or is that kind of like making it into an "All Lives Matter" slogan?

I'd go for that; problem is that there's a metric ton of people out there who would say that white people ARE better/worse than other groups.  What answer you get generally is determined by the historical perspective of the speaker vis a vis Western civilization.

[DominantPoet]

Not racist, certainly not needed in the general sense though. Not like anyone, to my knowledge, is putting up signs saying it's NOT okay to be white. Just people interpreting other signs saying it's okay to be x or y as implying that it, is not, in fact okay to be white. Which is ridiculous (even if there are those few who might take it to heart that way, sadly).

It's okay to be yourself, regardless of who that may be, as long as being yourself doesn't cause others physical harm, undue stress, or otherwise violate their basic human rights. That's my motto, at least.

[RedRose]

I don't think it's racist or needed.

It should be obvious that it is ok to be (proud to be) white, black, anything else. Be you, celebrate your heritage!

[Missy]

Suffer the troll to make the fool.

[Twisted Crow]

I don't think it's racist or needed.

It should be obvious that it is ok to be (proud to be) white, black, anything else. Be you, celebrate your heritage!

This.

[Jazzylynn]

It is ok to be white. It is ok to be black too. I hate public schools and colleges and all that, so I am unaware of what 4chan is. Is the expression “it’s OK to be white.” A response to something like black lives matter? Think about it… black lives matter… the lives of blacks matter. Congratulations to all you who know this, made the slogan and group and are trying to get your feelings out to the rest of the world who primarily already knew this too. All of it is stupid and I believe made by the poor souls of my new generation. Apparently calling a black person “black” or talking about “black people” is racist. I could care less if they referred to me as white so. A lot of stuff is being called “racist” now days when really, people are super squishy and get offended by everything or take things the wrong way. If there is a group of black lives matters people at your campus, walk up and say it’s okay to be white. Have someone videotape you because it might get entertaining.

[Skynet]

It is ok to be white. It is ok to be black too. I hate public schools and colleges and all that, so I am unaware of what 4chan is. Is the expression “it’s OK to be white.” A response to something like black lives matter? Think about it… black lives matter… the lives of blacks matter. Congratulations to all you who know this, made the slogan and group and are trying to get your feelings out to the rest of the world who primarily already knew this too. All of it is stupid and I believe made by the poor souls of my new generation. Apparently calling a black person “black” or talking about “black people” is racist. I could care less if they referred to me as white so. A lot of stuff is being called “racist” now days when really, people are super squishy and get offended by everything or take things the wrong way. If there is a group of black lives matters people at your campus, walk up and say it’s okay to be white. Have someone videotape you because it might get entertaining.

Sounds like you're encouraging folks to get a rise out of others by race-baiting and public shaming, which is not a productive use of discourse.

[HannibalBarca]

I'm white, or, at the least, I identify as such.  I'm 1/4 Native American, but I don't look it.  I've had enough friends who are not white and been close enough to them and cared about them that I noticed when they were treated differently than me.  I've noticed my youngest brother, who looks much less white and much more Native American, be treated differently than me.  I'm intelligent enough to recognize that a predisposition towards an individual based on their perceived ethnicity is racism.  Racism is real.  I've experienced it, not personally, but through my family and friends being treated like shit because of it.  I've been treated better than them because I was perceived as white, or male, or straight, or cis. 

One of the biggest bullshit lines I've ever heard is other whites, particularly straight white males like me, whining about being victims of reverse racism.  If you've gotten to start every race twenty yards ahead of everyone else, then sure, when you suddenly have to start at the same line as everyone else, you might initially feel like someone is cheating you.  But it's just your unfair advantage that's being taken away.  It's the perception that has to change.  It's an insidious form of entitlement, having white or male or straight privilege.  It hurts those who don't have the privilege, but it also warps the mindset of those who do have it, removing their empathy for those different than them.

[Lustful Bride]

One of the biggest bullshit lines I've ever heard is other whites, particularly straight white males like me, whining about being victims of reverse racism.  If you've gotten to start every race twenty yards ahead of everyone else, then sure, when you suddenly have to start at the same line as everyone else, you might initially feel like someone is cheating you.  But it's just your unfair advantage that's being taken away.  It's the perception that has to change.  It's an insidious form of entitlement, having white or male or straight privilege.  It hurts those who don't have the privilege, but it also warps the mindset of those who do have it, removing their empathy for those different than them.

Though that shouldn't discount the actual cases where there is reverse racism or just bigotry from another group. We should always be wary of double standards and stomp them out twice as hard, because all they do is hurt the cause of equality by giving white supremacists something to use to their advantage to rally others to their side, or give non-white bigots the feeling that it is alright to be bigoted themselves, which only hurts relations and feeds into itself and the other side like a vicious cycle.

Have no idea if what I said made any sense but I hope it did.   :-[

[CopperLily]

At the very least it's co-opting many of the concepts used by dis-empowered groups and creating the sense that there's an issue where there really isn't one - there's really no empirical support for the notion that this country has *ever* been a place where it's "Not OK to be white".

Basically, if I put a bunch of signs around campus saying:

"There Is No Cure For Copper Lily Syndrome" that is *technically* correct - but the purpose of it is to suggest that there *is* a Copper Lily Syndrome. "It's OK to Be White" suggests this is a position in need of defense.

[Twisted Crow]

It could be projected guilt that does little for anyone. To be aware of what is/was/has not been fair for others is one thing. To be passively 'bullied into' hating ones self for being born a certain way is something else entirely. And before one suggests "that doesn't happen"... let me politely stop them right there with my own experience:

Yes. Yes, it does.   ^-^

Still though, I would agree that such statements like "It's okay to be..." are ultimately unnecessary. If one does not live a life that harms others, I would generally agree that "It is okay to be you." One could look to me for the color of my flesh, yet I typically define myself and others by who... not by "what".  :-)

[eBadger]

It's a response which implies an attack on whites, and plays perfectly into the current white nationalist conservative narrative that whites are victims, are being treated unfairly, are having something taken away that they deserve whenever minirities are given rights.  It's the poor florist forced to serve those gays, or the registrar martyred with jail time for her defense of traditional marriage, or those poor police in fear of their lives from all those gang members pulled over for traffic violations. 

So while the statement is superficially fine, the obvious subtext is, imho, racist as absolute fuck. 

[FeveredDreams]

Is it racist?  No,  but it's stupid as hell. 

[Missy]

It's a response which implies an attack on whites, and plays perfectly into the current white nationalist conservative narrative that whites are victims, are being treated unfairly, are having something taken away that they deserve whenever minirities are given rights.  It's the poor florist forced to serve those gays, or the registrar martyred with jail time for her defense of traditional marriage, or those poor police in fear of their lives from all those gang members pulled over for traffic violations. 

So while the statement is superficially fine, the obvious subtext is, imho, racist as absolute fuck.

It's kind of hard what to expect from 4chan, they tend to generally organize efforts to unify people and advance general goodwill and understanding between disparate parties . . . I'm not a sarcastic person, really.

[Skynet]

It's kind of hard what to expect from 4chan, they tend to generally organize efforts to unify people and advance general goodwill and understanding between disparate parties . . . I'm not a sarcastic person, really.

This is why saying "4chan did it" for anything is muddying the waters. There are many sub-boards on that website with their own subcultures. It's not fitness enthusiasts or board gamers organizing GamerGate harassment mobs, nor is it a good idea to imply that the internet vigilantes of yesteryear who mobilized against the Church of Scientology are the same faces as the alt-right.

Which is earlier why I specified /pol/, a subforum of 4chan which is a haven for alt-right sympathies.

[Jazzylynn]

Sounds like you're encouraging folks to get a rise out of others by race-baiting and public shaming, which is not a productive use of discourse.

If someone gets offended about something and wants to make a deal of it and look like an idiot, that is on them. If I see a back lives matter campaign and I go in and simply say "who here says you do not matter?" or "white lives matter to" I am almost positive that something "entertaining", but it won't start with me. Anytime I do not agree with a gay person, liberal, black, or have my rebel flag showing someone gets mad, sometimes yells and says a lot of stuff that does not matter because they get upset. People told me not to have republican, trump supporting or rebel flag decal on my truck because I was wanting to get some. Why? Because people on the opposing end of those view go and take it off, scratch the truck or look for a fight. If it happened to me I would want to video it. People should see how people act. It is entertaining in a sense, to me and others, to see how some people will react to things.

I do not know what race-baiting is but it sounds like another newly formed word to define something that shouldn't even have it's own word.

[Darkcide]

If someone gets offended about something and wants to make a deal of it and look like an idiot, that is on them. If I see a back lives matter campaign and I go in and simply say "who here says you do not matter?" or "white lives matter to" I am almost positive that something "entertaining", but it won't start with me. Anytime I do not agree with a gay person, liberal, black, or have my rebel flag showing someone gets mad, sometimes yells and says a lot of stuff that does not matter because they get upset. People told me not to have republican, trump supporting or rebel flag decal on my truck because I was wanting to get some. Why? Because people on the opposing end of those view go and take it off, scratch the truck or look for a fight. If it happened to me I would want to video it. People should see how people act. It is entertaining in a sense, to me and others, to see how some people will react to things.

I do not know what race-baiting is but it sounds like another newly formed word to define something that shouldn't even have it's own word.

Boy howdy I don't know where to start.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

Here, Darkcide, maybe this will help.

https://splinternews.com/if-youre-confused-about-what-race-baiting-is-heres-a-b-1793848630


If you go into a room and purposely use a phrase you know is going to rile someone up, then yeah, it does start with you. You are the cause. You're the one causing the trouble. You're the problem.

There's literally no other way to look at it that is logically sound. You picked a fight, that's on you, sweetcheeks. At least your stance makes more sense as to where your beliefs are.

[HannibalBarca]

I think a lot of misunderstanding could have been avoided if the title of the group had been 'Black Lives Matter, Too', but I can understand the subtext.  The group was formed to get attention on the generally poor treatment of African-Americans by law enforcement in the U.S.  Individuals within BLM can be bad, just like individuals in any organization can be bad, but the aim of the group is to draw attention to injustices.

I can also relate the reason for which many people are getting upset with the rebel flag. (Boldface mine)  Source: http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/secession.html

Declaration of Causes of Secession, Mississippi (excerpt):

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Declaration of Causes of Secession, Texas (excerpt):

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

There is more from other states, on that page, and other pages that can be found easily enough through web searches.  The rebellion of the Southern states was over slavery.  It was a rebellion for the purposes of maintaining their state-mandated right to own human beings as property, even if it was not being taken away, but considered.  They had lost their majority control of Congress due to Kansas, and then California, being admitted as free states, and if they could not control Congress, they knew that eventually, some year, abolition was going to be passed as an amendment.  They balked at losing what they considered property, but was human beings, and made the only move they felt was available to them to maintain the status quo: secede from the United States.

The 'rebel flag' as it is called today, which is actually the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia (Robert E. Lee, commander), was only adopted as a symbol of the South in the 20th century, as a response to the Civil Rights Movement.  It is often claimed as a symbol of heritage, or as the history of the South.  History is in books mainly, or museums.  Heritage it may be to some, but not the heritage of everyone in the South. 

That particular flag may be a symbol to some people, but in point of fact it was the battle flag of men who betrayed their Oath to the Constitution as United States soldiers, and therefore it is the flag of traitors.  Robert E. Lee may strike some as honorable for being loyal to his state, but as a member of the United States Army, he took an oath to the Constitution, and that meant his loyalty was supposed to be to his country, not state.

One of the actual flags of the Confederacy was the battle flag centered on a field of white.  This quote describes why the designers chose it:

On April 23, 1863, the Savannah Morning News editor William Tappan Thompson, with assistance from William Ross Postell, a Confederate blockade runner, published an editorial championing a design featuring the battle flag on a white background he referred to later as "The White Man's Flag." In explaining the white background, Thompson wrote, "As a people we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause.

'Our cause'.  You can be proud to be from a region, or a particular ethnic group, or a religion, or as a fan of a team, of a fandom, or what have you.  But the evidence stands clear and firm that the rebel flag was created as a symbol for white supremacy, and flown by an army of traitors to our Constitution, in order to fight to keep African-Americans enslaved.  It might mean something different to you, and you're entitled to believe that.  But beliefs aren't facts.  I'll go with the facts, and I only display one flag, the flag of the United States of America. 

My grandfathers were World War 2 veterans, and white men, and one of them was an open racist who admitted to hating African-Americans, among others.  But both of them despised the rebel flag, because it was the flag of traitors who turned their backs on their oaths and their country.  A lot of people have other reasons for disliking or hating the rebel flag, but knowing it was the symbol for a group of people who betrayed their honor and sought to keep other humans enslaved...that's enough for me to hate it.

[Oniya]

I do not know what race-baiting is but it sounds like another newly formed word to define something that shouldn't even have it's own word.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race-baiting

Here you go.  Coined in 1961.  Fifty-six years old.

[Skynet]

Torontoist reveals that white supremacists in there city were helping distribute the "it's okay to be white" flyers.

Also an article with video footage of them hanging up the flyers.

Granted this is for one city, but I think it shows what kind of crowd the slogan is attracting.

[Markus]

4chan recently encouraged people to put up signs saying "It's OK to white" in colleges and universities. The reaction was predictable with people calling it racist and problematic. None of these signs said it wasn't ok to be any other race or ethnicity. I'll go out on a limb and say it is ok to be white, just as it's ok be anything other than white. Bit then again this is 4chan trying to press the buttons of the easily offended.

I'd just like to see other peoples takes on this as I don't like to keep myself stuck in an echo chamber.

I'm not white myself, however in my opinion..

Its ok being white,
Its ok being black,
Its ok being yellow,
Its ok being brown,
Its ok being magenta,
Its ok being purple,

Its not ok putting down / trashing someone else or some other group while being proud of what you are.
If none of these signs said you weren't ok to be any other race or ethnicity and if the demonstrators or what have you were just handing out fliers, leaflets, minding their own business, not being too aggressive or in your face, I at least wouldn't be having a problem.

[Jazzylynn]

If you go into a room and purposely use a phrase you know is going to rile someone up, then yeah, it does start with you. You are the cause. You're the one causing the trouble. You're the problem.

Okay so if "It's ok to be white" riles up a black person and they have the right to have that rile them up then is it okay if the group black lives matter bothers me because I think it is dramatic, farfetched or whatever then I have that right. Is it racist of me to have that opinion?

If someone calling black person black is racist, or if a white person walking into a campain for black lives matter says "Hey, ya know... it's okay to be white. it's okay to be anything. Don't you think all lives matter?" ... that is race baiting? If I started a campaign called white lives matter would that be racist or race baiting?

[HannibalBarca]

Okay so if "It's ok to be white" riles up a black person and they have the right to have that rile them up then is it okay if the group black lives matter bothers me because I think it is dramatic, farfetched or whatever then I have that right. Is it racist of me to have that opinion?

It would depend on why Black Lives Matter bothers you, first of all.  The reason would make a difference.  Why does it bother you?

If someone calling black person black is racist, or if a white person walking into a campain for black lives matter says "Hey, ya know... it's okay to be white. it's okay to be anything. Don't you think all lives matter?" ... that is race baiting? If I started a campaign called white lives matter would that be racist or race baiting?

I think it is already apparent to anyone with concern for their fellow human beings that 'all lives matter'.  However, events have shown that in many instances, black lives are valued less than white lives.  Some people wanted to change that, and make it apparent to those who didn't realize it, that black lives should be valued as much as white lives.  Seriously, I'm white and I've seen instances of racism here in supposedly liberal California, far too many times.  I have a hard time believing that this is the worst state for racism in the United States. 

And, again, starting a campaign called 'white lives matter' may or may not be racist, depending on the purpose of the campaign.  Considering the overall power white people have in proportion to people of other ethnicities, I think it's blatantly obvious that the overall culture of our nation already thinks white lives matter a great deal.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

Also, you're begging the question, which is another logical fallacy. I'll be as clear about this as I can:

1. If you approach someone and say something you KNOW will rile them up and do it BECAUSE it will rile them up, you're race baiting. If you say it DESPITE the fact it will rile them up, then probably not. You can try to paint it a million shades of grey in between, but the reality is that this is, as far as I'm concerned, the only real criteria that's necessary to determine the truth.

2. You completely (possibly intentionally) misinterpret the point of BLM. Whatever else individuals have made it, the conversation was meant to be as follows.

"I am an unarmed black person. Don't shoot me."
"Why not?"
"Because black lives matter."
"You mean, they're just as important as white lives?"
"Yah."

Instead of people making it about white lives, listen to the conversation. They're not comparing themselves to anyone else. They're saying that on an inherent basis, they have value. Not compared to anyone, nor comparing anyone to them. But on the merit of their own existence, they matter and need to be treated with respect. If you're still arguing in terms of comparisons, then yes. You are exactly the sort of mindset they're protesting. So, either you are the reason they're dying or being incarcerated in such unbalanced numbers, thus sparking a need for the movement in the first place, or you're intentionally trying to bait them into acting out in order to be discredited, disrespected or mocked.

If you have another explanation, I would be interested in hearing what exactly that could be. I always like to be able to hear them so I can learn how to communicate with them and hopefully put this "hey, if they matter then by definition I have to matter less" nonsense to rest. Only those who have thought that of someone else can truly think others mean to imply the same. It reminds me of the argument that white people are somehow being attacked because other heritage exist. Those who make that argument seem to think that because other races were enslaved and abused for hundreds or thousands of years, that's what every other heritage wants to do to them. They are incapable of understanding the concept of equality separate from the concept of evening the score, because those are the only terms in which they think.

[NebulousCass]

At the very least it's co-opting many of the concepts used by dis-empowered groups and creating the sense that there's an issue where there really isn't one - there's really no empirical support for the notion that this country has *ever* been a place where it's "Not OK to be white".

Basically, if I put a bunch of signs around campus saying:

"There Is No Cure For Copper Lily Syndrome" that is *technically* correct - but the purpose of it is to suggest that there *is* a Copper Lily Syndrome. "It's OK to Be White" suggests this is a position in need of defense.

I have met a few people that feel that there is a need to defend themselves for being white. They genuinely felt, or at least said so, that they felt like being white was suddenly inherently wrong, or that because they were white they felt as though they were unwelcome or excluded from events that supported groups like "Black Lives Matter" or any other such group that promotes/supports minority groups.

Now the whole "It's OK to be white" thing from 4chan is quite obviously a ploy to cause controversy and it appears to have been successful in that regard at least but you brought up a point that I would like to hear people's opinions on.

Is being white, a position in need of defense?

[Fury Aphrodisia]

Is it PERCEIVED as a reality needing defense, or is it so in nature, which would your question be?

I would argue that for the former, yes, at least to some individuals with relatively justified thought process (please remember with me that justified doesn't mean correct, just defensible).  The latter however needs to be further dissected. There are certainly those that attack on the basis of white, though I would argue that they are no less fringe than extremist feminists, conservatives, liberals or any other sort of group. Extremists cannot be allowed to define a whole movement. Unfortunately, they're also both loud and dangerous because of how loud they are.

However, with the exception of those extremists, is there another reason these people feel excluded vy events that include BLM? In Toronto this year, there was huge contraversy because the head of BLM Toronto happens to be a transgender woman (i think it was, will check and leave an update if requested) who called for a ban on police officers in uniform from marching in the parade. It is somewhat traditional and yet, the local head of BLM took it upon herself to speak for a different community to disinvite the police to march in solidarity.

These sorts of actions, exclusionary in what seems to be a retaliatiry fashion, are the sorts of actions that are pushing that divide open again. It simply isn't necessary, and yet...... It is little wonder that people are feeling as though they might end up singled out by those who appear to be retaliating. The vast majority of Americans and Canadians both are not only against slavery as a concept and, psst.... Don't own slaves. They're not keen on paying for the anger of something they're far too young to have been a part of.

This can be found, at least anecdotally, to be true regardless of which side of some arbitrary struggle we find ourselves: Liberal or Conservative; religious or humanist; Canadian or American; black or white. If this is the impression that the group is leaving, a re-branding or possibly disbanding may need to be considered.

This all goes to say that those people who feel excluded and attacked for being white are still also in the minority, even if not by as much as those who might try to lash out about it or those who truly are racist. But the majority do not face much if any persecution for being white, so what little they do probably stings more, but it's the equivalent of my son telling me his scraped knee is the worst pain anyone's ever felt, ever! It's simultaneously entertaining and exasperating, less one and more the other the more often I hear it.

As people who are or pass for Caucasian, we don't really get persecuted to a point where I feel we need to defend ourselves. In North America, we're defending ourselves from meanies while our neighbours are trying to defend ghemselves by being gunned down in the street. If you feel the need to lut up signs reaffirming that you have nothing to complain about, do it in your own room.

[Suiko]

I'm going to stick my neck out here.

I've been following this discussion for a while and have zero desire to put my opinion forward because of the ripping response received should you disagree with the majority opinion here on the site. It doesn't do well to encourage discussion when people's views are piled on, ridiculed, hared, and whenever I see people use words like sweetie to put someone else down, it shuts down any desire I have to talk about an issue.

Here's where I'm sticking my neck out: it's wrong for Jazzylynn to have been put on probation for what's gone on here, because she can no longer defend herself. Whatever I think about what's been said, I've seen both sides of the argument becoming very heated - as they might, it's a very charged issue - and some people might be offended by a few points raised.

But no one has a right to be offended. Saying "I'm offended" is a sure fire way of stopping any alternative opinion from coming forward. I would encourage anyone to look at Steven Fry's famous thoughts on the topic. If I'm wrong and things other than this thread have conspired to result in a probation, then fair enough. But to me looking in, it looks very... unpleasant, and I'm sure anyone can see the association that makes between voicing a 'wrong' opinion and consequences.

There we go. It left a bitter taste in my mouth so... I wanted to speak about it.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

This is something I see a lot of, and I'm not going to try to categorize it but I do want to make sure it's addressed clearly. The heart of the issue, in any case, so we can get past it.

People are not attacked for having a different opinion. Or at least, Jazzylynn was not attacked for having it. Even in this thread, aside from the fact she's said some comments that were clearly meant to raise ire, there has not been a mass attack of any sort for simply having another opinion. A few people have raised points to counter hers, I don't specifically recall anyone attacking her, personally. Dissecting her points, sure, offering measured responses as far as I have seen. Hannibal Barca specifically seems to have done a good job of maintaining composure and explaining his point of view.

Now, there was also another thread here in which Jazzylynn has posted - the only two in which she has posted at all anywhere on the site since July when she joined. If you are curious enough, there is quite a bit to read there. But the long and short of it is that she made some comments that were inflammatory there as well, and when told she was being hurtful, directly and openly hostile to those in our community, specifically, who wear the Leige tag, she shifted the blame and doubled down.

In that thread, it might, yes, have very much looked like she was under attack. But not because she disagreed. In fact, there have been several people who have voiced a variety of opinions, some specifically that I would point out except I don't feel like dragging them into this mess. If she was attacked, it was largely because of the hateful things that were said, and her Eunuch status is, at least in part, for the hateful comments that staff felt the need to fully remove from those messages. I will not repeat them, of course, but on a vague note, they included singling out a particular subset of Elliquiy's community, making allegations as to the nature of their existence and calling into question the quality of their characters and status as human beings based on the reasons they wear the tag that they do.

I'm not sure if you're referring to something I said as using the term "sweetie", but it's a habit I use when I'm particularly upset so I'm going to go ahead and claim responsibility for it in any case. It's what I often use to remind myself to calm down and remain lighthearted where at all possible. I often consider it an alternative to actually launching a full-out attack on another person, since that is not fair. I believe I used the word "honey" specifically in response to Jazzylynn, so I do use it. I can see how it would put someone off. I will not, however, prostrate myself for the habit. There are many things that put people off about talking to me, that will simply have to join those ranks. I have done nothing wrong by doing so and I have avoided doing something worse.

Something that frustrates me is that those of a different thought process - often those with a conservative lean - will walk into largely-liberal communities and begin immediately with "Well, I know what happens to people around here who express a different opinion, so I fully expect to be attacked...." This is... ludicrous and unfair. And if people didn't want to attack them before, they certainly want to do it now. There is a fallacy wrapped up in that, but as stated before I want to get to the heart of the matter so I won't be explaining it in detail, but it's called "poisoning the well". Aside from that, however, it's an extremely hostile way of riling people up for a fight before delivering the battleground.

What's worse is that generally speaking, most of the people who start out like that deliver a few thoughts that are well organized and mildly delivered, to which the community responds with reasonable vigour. To the idea, not the person. Even so, some of those who started out with poisoning the well will still claim that they, personally are being attacked. This is far more a blockage of communication than anything said in response to this individual could have ever been. People get very touchy when their ideas are dismantled, and it is not a trait that is reserved to Elliquiy, Liberal-leaning communities or other organizations. Individuals are just as guilty of doing this and often will go out of their (very loud) way to see it happen. They will specifically inject an opinion that, in and of itself, is afforded no particular surge of respect. When it is disagreed with, they construe it as a personal rejection and attack the big, mean, evil hive-mind liberals for having dared to offer arguments against the idea. This is absurd.

And then there are those who will poison the well and proceed to deliver their opinion in the worst possible way. They often claim they were perfectly calm until someone else said something mean to hurt their feelings as though that were justification for their words or even remotely the point (or even not their intent to begin with). Or they point out that they fully predicted that they would be attacked and lo, it has come to pass as though they delivered some weighty ancient prophecy rather than the self-fulfilling one that had last passed their lips (Or in this case fingertips).

"Hello, Bunnylovers.com. I know you all love rabbits of all sorts and you're probably going to attack me for saying this, but you always claim opinions are respected, so let's test that.
Dwarf rabbits are stupid, anyone who likes them must be stupid and I hope you all go to hell."

This is OBVIOUSLY going to draw ire and if someone then points to it as a group trying to shut down conversation, they are being at the very least criminally dishonest. It's a juvenile tactic used to try to divert from the topic at hand and embroil one's opponents in defending themselves, defending each other and all around lack of focus on the discussing initially being had. And sometimes it's just flat-out trolling.

It is into this last cross-section that I believe Jazzylynn to exist. Those who will claim (paraphrased) "Transgender people aren't legitimate, but they're extreme examples of people that want to be gay and we shoulnd't allow it. I don't do any research on the topic, it's just an opinion and by its very nature is just as legitimate as any of you saying they deserve respect". It was, I think, for these comments (based elsewhere on PROC)that she was put on probation. Because she violated the terms of Elliquiy's membership. Without taking into account personal feelings on the subject of opposing viewpoints, it was this violation that led to her disciplinary status.


There have been some who have voiced dissenting opinions without being castrated. Almost universally, these are people who have presented their opinions in a much more civil manner than has been my experience with Jazzylynn. I would argue that anyone has a "right" to be offended. What's more important to me by far is how you choose to address that offense. And more to the point, in terms of these events, is that if one is being offensive, they do their best to take responsibility for it. being offended only stops the conversation if you cannot address it moving forward. For instance, if our Bunnylovers.com crasher got a message saying "That's offensive, that needs to stop. Say you don't like them if you wish, but don't attack others for liking them." That's a reasonable response that does not shut down conversation. The individual is then free to clarify "I don't like Dwarf rabbits. I think they look strange and I'm not a fan." Conversation resumes as per usual. Offense is not the end of a discussion. Not inherently and claiming that it is so is ludicrous. What will stop conversation is refusing to permit... further discussion. If you feel your dissenting opinion being challenged is an end to conversation, it was never going to be a conversation in the first place. Expecting others to accept your viewpoint without discussion is an equal level of unacceptable as it is to be shouted down and attacked because someone is offended. They are both extremes.

Unfortunately, Elliquiy cannot be responsible for the way that all conversations look. They can do nothing if one of their permanently banned members were in the middle of a story and a reader, knowing only that of them, automatically assumes it is the material of a story that has resulted in that expulsion. Elliquiy is not responsible for people's impressions of their disciplinary measures and trying to claim that they are instead of the person rushing to judgement with little to no evidence is an unfair pressure to put on staff. In the event that someone is permanently banned, there is generally some explanation left in the appropriate thread. The reasons for someone not being exposed when only castrated or some similar measure is usually because they must then face the rest of the community on return. The probation is intended to give them a chance to turn around their behaviour and in going forward in good faith, it is unethical to force them to face the community after detailing their crimes and expect them to be able to better fit into the community than they did before.

I can understand absolutely where you are coming from in your distaste on the issue. From the points you have presented, it is entirely reasonable that it would be an unpleasant parallel to draw. I would like to take the opportunity to direct attention to a function of member profiles that allows us to see the extent of a person's posts on Elliquiy from their introduction through to most recent posts. This might help to give an overview of the sort of conversation that any particular individual is involved with.

I do not blame you for your impressions. I would like to encourage more research prior to taking offense, but it follows logically from your impressions that you would be concerned about the atmosphere here, and I appreciate you coming forward to say something to try to address the issue. Thank you for your vigilance.

[ElvenKitten]

Oh no! What have I created... *Hides away*

[Fury Aphrodisia]

Oh, sweetheart. Don't take responsibility for what others have done with your conversation seed. Nothing you haven't directly said is on you.

I, myself, am glad that you started the conversation. There have been some very good points brought up here, as well, and I would not have missed out on those.

[Suiko]

Oh, sweetheart. Don't take responsibility for what others have done with your conversation seed. Nothing you haven't directly said is on you.

I, myself, am glad that you started the conversation. There have been some very good points brought up here, as well, and I would not have missed out on those.

Just wanted to +1 this in terms of starting the the. Things are good to talk about *nods*

Also glad that what I said was taken on board well. Honestly I was worried about posting so I'm happy ^^;

[Arvus23]

I remember this, this was fun to do.

Gave everyone a good laugh really.

The very idea of "It's ok to be white" was to see if 4chan, more specifically /pol/, could raise the ire of colleges for the simple message that was provided. No context was given, therefore it was left to people to determine context and that would lead to many a fun chuckles.

However for those saying that white people and white men in particular aren't being discriminated against. I'd like you to look at affirmative action and all the college scholarships that are offered to people of color or females, that aren't for males or white people.

I could go into a rant, but I won't.

[MiraMirror]

That might have a little something to do with the fact that white males don't have to deal with systemic oppression from the day they're born.  Just tossing that out there.  The whole idea that something is given to a minority or a female and one of the standard reactions is "But how come I, a white male, didn't get that, toooooo?" is kind of telling.  (I'm not talking about you, specifically, but a general view.)

[Silk]

That might have a little something to do with the fact that white males don't have to deal with systemic oppression from the day they're born.  Just tossing that out there.  The whole idea that something is given to a minority or a female and one of the standard reactions is "But how come I, a white male, didn't get that, toooooo?" is kind of telling.  (I'm not talking about you, specifically, but a general view.)

My question there would be where does "It's ok to be White" come across as gender centric? That's something you're chosing to attribute.

Although I could bring up the irony that "Ahh it's just those straight white cisnormative men complaining again" and disregarding their concerns and context behind it instead of considering them like an individual instead of some kind of well your race/sex is better off as a whole so your personal opinions, feelings and curcumstances don't matter, is exactly why things like It's ok to be white is starting to gain the traction that it is.

[MiraMirror]

For clarification,  my last post was directly replying to the second -to-last paragraph in Arvus's post, not the overarching topic of the thread.   I apologize for any confusion regarding that.

[TheHighwayHitman]

Hey. I'm white. And its awesome to be me. So I guess it means it's awesome to be white, not just okay. :D



But really, is it any wonder the aliens won't reveal themselves to us and let us see the galaxy? We're so worried about trivial stuff like skin color... something not a one of us had a say in anyway, we as a species all have our individual preferences. That's why we are all different! Race shouldn't be that important. I tend to ignore things like it's okay to be x signs. :)

[Arvus23]

That might have a little something to do with the fact that white males don't have to deal with systemic oppression from the day they're born.  Just tossing that out there.  The whole idea that something is given to a minority or a female and one of the standard reactions is "But how come I, a white male, didn't get that, toooooo?" is kind of telling.  (I'm not talking about you, specifically, but a general view.)

Give an example of systematic oppression please.

Before you say slavery or the lack for women to vote, let me go ahead and cut that off.

Slavery has been over with for nearly two centuries, the civil rights movement would be more viable, but there are no rights afforded to white people that aren't afford to any other race.

Lack of women voting is just a lie. Rather it was people who owned land were only able to vote and yes, women did vote if they owned land. It was rare but it was there. Looking past that, there are no rights given to men that aren't given to women. If you want to debate the gender wage gap, I will because that lie is based on one chart from the BLS. If you look at the hours worked by women and men, along with how men generally negotiate their pay more often then women. It's really easy to see that the wage gap is due to the different ways men and women think.

[Lustful Bride]

Give an example of systematic oppression please.

Before you say slavery or the lack for women to vote, let me go ahead and cut that off.

Slavery has been over with for nearly two centuries, the civil rights movement would be more viable, but there are no rights afforded to white people that aren't afford to any other race.

Lack of women voting is just a lie. Rather it was people who owned land were only able to vote and yes, women did vote if they owned land. It was rare but it was there. Looking past that, there are no rights given to men that aren't given to women. If you want to debate the gender wage gap, I will because that lie is based on one chart from the BLS. If you look at the hours worked by women and men, along with how men generally negotiate their pay more often then women. It's really easy to see that the wage gap is due to the different ways men and women think.

Off topic, but you might be able to have a better conversation without the tone and hostility coming through your writing. I do find the conversations going on very interesting, and I am curious to hear both sides of the debate, but after a while some of the jabs and obvious anger get kind of grating and ruin what might be an informative and fascinating discussion.

[Darkcide]

Give an example of systematic oppression please.

Before you say slavery or the lack for women to vote, let me go ahead and cut that off.

Slavery has been over with for nearly two centuries, the civil rights movement would be more viable, but there are no rights afforded to white people that aren't afford to any other race.

Lack of women voting is just a lie. Rather it was people who owned land were only able to vote and yes, women did vote if they owned land. It was rare but it was there. Looking past that, there are no rights given to men that aren't given to women. If you want to debate the gender wage gap, I will because that lie is based on one chart from the BLS. If you look at the hours worked by women and men, along with how men generally negotiate their pay more often then women. It's really easy to see that the wage gap is due to the different ways men and women think.

Lol.

[Skynet]

Give an example of systematic oppression please.

Blockbusting. Here's an article about it.

Basically after the turmoil of the 1960s, there was a not-insignificant fear that the end of segregation would turn white neighborhoods into crime-ridden black slums. Various real estate brokers tapped into this racial fear by encouraging white people to sell their properties at a loss. In some cases they'd even hire very desperate African-Americans (homeless especially) to push shopping carts full of trash around said neighborhoods to give the impression that "they're already coming in!"

Once the realtors got their nice homes, they'd then sell it to African-Americans at above-market rates. The moving in of a black family into said neighborhoods created a self-fulfilling prophecy, triggering a chain reaction of "white flight."

This was not an isolated case. Along with redlining and "ghetto loans" these shaped entire neighborhoods and although illegal, many of these real estate businesses and banks did not go out of business or get shut down.

[TheHighwayHitman]

Is it still a common practice today? You said not insignificant fear which implies at least some of it was warranted. Don't get me twisted though. I think racism is bad. Point me at it and I'm happy to blast it.

[Oniya]

'Not insignificant' simply means that it wasn't just one or two people 'having issues'.  Back in the '60s, it was still considered scandalous if a married couple was interracial.  (Ref. Loving vs. VA)  There was fear, and it was moderately prevalent - that's not to say it was at all rational.

[Skynet]

Is it still a common practice today? You said not insignificant fear which implies at least some of it was warranted. Don't get me twisted though. I think racism is bad. Point me at it and I'm happy to blast it.

They already shaped the neighborhoods we live in, and as a result of various policies the African-American neighborhoods have the worst infrastructure on average. And in Baltimore's case, a lot of those houses have lead paint which is a health hazard. The legacy still impacts generations today.

ContraPoints did a pretty good video hinting on those things. First pertains specifically to Baltimore and how the death of Freddie Gray was the straw that broke the camel's back. I do not have the time stamp, but she also talked about how there was an entire cottage industry of lawyers preying upon African-American families suing for damages caused by lead paint, and due to deception ended up being tricked out of most of their funds which said lawyers pocketed.

Another more recent video is more broad and covers this along with a variety of other issues.

And regarding banks, Wells Fargo was found to have practiced discriminatory and unfair policies towards black and Latino lenders.

A thing to keep in mind is that there are social rules governing our societies which are not necessarily tied to the law. The legal rules of our society caught up, but our social rules have not.

[ReijiTabibito]

The real kicker on the housing thing is that the old practices of the past are now coming to unilaterally bite an entire generation - mine - in the present.  After the CRM, cities and townships were no longer allowed to discriminate in housing applications on the basis of race.

So they changed tactics, instead establishing an arcane series of regulations for the construction of new housing, as it is not - nor probably will it ever be - illegal to discriminate on the basis of being able to pay.  This was meant to keep minorities out of newly-established housing developments, as they would not be able to afford the cost of purchasing a home, but it's since backfired with the now-oncoming Millennials, who are putting off purchasing a house because the aforementioned regulations have driven the value of housing through the roof.

The worst of it is that the regulations won't come undone, not without a lot of push from renters and people who still ascribe to the notion that home ownership is a good way to build wealth, because for homeowners, there is no such thing as a housing crisis.

IH, though, I think a lot of what faces the black community today gets mis-classified.  That's not to say that there's not discrimination against them - there is - but a lot of what we deal with now, such as infrastructure and the noted above housing, I think can be called economic oppression, too.  It's a blurry line for me, because how do you separate one from the other in the case of this particular segment of society?

[Skynet]

IH, though, I think a lot of what faces the black community today gets mis-classified.  That's not to say that there's not discrimination against them - there is - but a lot of what we deal with now, such as infrastructure and the noted above housing, I think can be called economic oppression, too.  It's a blurry line for me, because how do you separate one from the other in the case of this particular segment of society?

Intersectional theory addresses these concerns.

Imagine a poor white man and a poor black man. Let's assume both are the same age and body type: twenty-something, around 6 feet tall, not muscular but do have a bit of muscle from manual labor jobs. Both worry about paying rent, not having adequate healthcare, etc.

But the poor black man's much more likely to be prematurely shot or viewed as a dangerous threat by police officers.

The black man's much less likely to have his job applications get through if he has a "black" name like Tyrone.

The black man will be much more likely to receive a longer sentence for a crime than the white man, even if the circumstances and offenses are virtually identical. He's also much more likely to be pulled over by police and stopped and frisk for weapons or drugs on his person.

I realize that there are many other minority groups than just African-Americans and Caucasians, and they too face problems both similar and unique. But this may be a bit too lengthy for one post.

[Lustful Bride]

Its the problems of a system. Systems of hate are like cycles of violence and other harmful terms. They live to only perpetuate themselves, to pit people against each other, to make them bleed and suffer so they can never pick each other up and work together to stop it and break the cycle from continuing on again and again.

[ReijiTabibito]

Intersectionality isn't one of those things I ascribe to - mostly because I'm not even sure what the hell it is.  Seems like every third person I know talks about intersectionality, but it never sounds like the same thing.  ( https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/30/intersectional-feminism-jargon )  The linked article largely echoes my confusion about the term.


Here's what I will agree on, though.  Certain specific communities have a spiderweb of problems, all of which relate to and can reinforce others.  The centerpiece of what sits at this spiderweb is man's inherent distrust of cultures unlike his own, of "their ways are strange."

This is anecdotal, but I grew up in a mid-sized city, around 50k in population, in 'flyover country.'  We weren't majority-minority, but we did have a more-than-average presence at our schools.  Here's the thing.  As students, we all got along really well, regardless of appearance, and I think that had to do with culture.  We saw the same movies, listened to the same music, complained about the same things.  (And if we didn't, we considered that it really wasn't our business what other people watched or listened, most of the time.)

To resume the line.  One of the major chains on the black community is the view - some would argue it's legit, others would argue it's perceived, I argue look at the DoJ numbers - that they are a disproportionate segment of the criminal populace.  If you hear a statistic - true or not - that black people are...let's say 3x as likely to commit a crime.  That's going to influence the decisions of hiring managers.  "Kid seems alright, but can I really trust that he's one of 'the good ones,' or is it just an act?"  Most people, being cautious by nature, will look for a safer option.  Which has the unfortunate effect of leaving the kid in the lurch.  But the kid still needs a place to stay, or at least money to chip in if he's living at home.

This is probably 100% obvious, but people are more likely to consider criminal enterprises to earn income if they can't do it legitimately.  Kid can't get a job, instead turns to selling drugs (let's say weed, because it's usually the worst offender in disparate sentencing), gets arrested, bam.  You've just created a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Regina Minx]

Give an example of systematic oppression please.

How about the discrimination against hiring female musicians, such that when many major metropolitan orchestras transitioned to blind auditions, women got hired 30-55% more often?

[Oniya]

How about the discrimination against hiring female musicians, such that when many major metropolitan orchestras transitioned to blind auditions, women got hired 30-55% more often?

I read that as 'blind audiences'.  I've obviously been up too long.

[TheHighwayHitman]

Some things I agree with. Some things I don't. Some things have reasons associated with them that make the results. Statistics over the last few years have shown that a white person is more likely to get shot by the police. Furthermore the evidence doesn't show that blacks are targeted because they are doing nothing wrong. They get in trouble with the law more often because they disregard the law more often.

You look at things like wealth distribution... well, when you have a single parent household with a lack of education (having kids and having to work makes higher learning very difficult) the odds of being wealthy are slim to none. This isn't just black people either. This is a standard across the board. When you eliminate a parent and an income from a household you've forced the other parent to try and do double duty while simultaneously dropping maximum potential down by half.

I grew up in a single parent home. My pops worked three jobs. He literally broke his back twice. It wasn't pretty. So I know what it's like. It's also largely why I am the way that I am. I went through high school working full time and graduated on the honor role. Finished in the top 2% in the state on my science (biplogy) scores and scored a 1240 on my SAT. I had to work my rear end off. Things weren't handed to me. I certainly didn't cash any white privilege checks.

I don't buy the excuse of a poor education. I went to a black school. It was terrible. It wasn't taken seriously. There was no discipline. Girls would literally brag about getting pregnant "so they could get that check" and the boys were more interested in basket ball and street fighter. I'm not saying this to smash anybody or sound racist. It is literally first hand experience. When there are kids who cannot read or write, or do single digit multiplication by 8th or 9th grade, you can't realistically expect them to do well in the real world.

I think home ec should make a come back. That class was amazing. That was random. I know.

It's blurry to me. I don't want to sound like everybody started on an equal playing field. Because they didn't/don't. But I also refuse to give into the bar of low expectations or of being a victim of anything but your own bad choices (or your parents). I don't know how to explain It, but I will try. My successes over others throughout my life... I earned. How dare you diminish my success as mere privilege because of my skin color, or worse yet, insinuate that the reason you don't share my success is because you're oppressed due to your own skin color. Your parents taught you good ideas from bad ideas and you didn't listen. Or they didn't teach you, and we're subsequently, terrible parents.  Does what I am trying to say there make sense?

Switching to a different point mentioned; You shouldn't buy a house you can't afford. That seems like common sense to me. I'm confused. I don't have a house. But I'm going too. It won't be massive or anything. But I'm not going to put myself in debt for 30 years and the land it's going to be on will be mine. 40 acres of it. It's too early to tell, but that seems reasonable to me.

I dunno. It's an interesting conversation but also one in which I prefer to be an observer because I have mixed feelings both ways. I'm also not sure I can clearly convey my thoughts.

[Iniquitous]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBQx8FmOT_0

Argue that.

[RedRose]

This thread is especially interesting to me as some French students now are speaking of intersectionality, racialized no white meetings and all. It's very very new here and totally not understood (including by me, I fear, and sadly the fact that they trashed several unis including one I attended isn't helping). So, following.

[ReijiTabibito]

This thread is especially interesting to me as some French students now are speaking of intersectionality, racialized no white meetings and all. It's very very new here and totally not understood (including by me, I fear, and sadly the fact that they trashed several unis including one I attended isn't helping). So, following.

I forget which university it was, but one of the major campus protests featured safe spaces...that were segregated.  No whites, or no men, or what-have-you.  This got upped at the Evergreen College debacle, where basically all the minority students demanded that all the white students not show up to class for a day.  That's how Bret Weinstein got in the news, because he refused to comply with the demand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBQx8FmOT_0

Argue that.

Challenge accepted.

Some statements - "If your parents are still married," "If you grew up with a father figure in the home" - are cultural criteria.  The single parenthood rate amongst the black community is...I think I read somewhere triple that of the white community.  Studies have been published, quoted on TV, over and over - having a father in the home is a major net benefit to the family.  And yet, and yet...have we seen any real change?  This isn't the sort that can be codified into a regulation; if Congress tried to pass a compulsory marriage law, I think the entire country would turn out to oppose it.  So in this case, we have to ask ourselves - why is it that even with all those demonstrated advantages of marriage and fathers, why are not more people signing on for that?

The vast bulk of the statements - cell phone, helping with the bills, food on the table - are economic criteria.  They are directly related to someone's ability to secure income.  The higher you can go on the SES, the less you have to worry about questions like those.  We know where the money is - heck, I would argue that not having college as a post-secondary option is actually to the benefit of an individual, because it makes you explore other options!  Trade school.  Start your own business.  Etc.  If we know where the money is, then shouldn't it be a simple matter of educating those that want to escape poverty on how they can?

Last thing.  "None of the statements I've made have anything to do with any decision you've ever made."

He's correct.  But he's leaving out a major proviso.  They had no decision, they had no input into those things - but their parents did.  Their parents decided yes or no on marriage; their parents decided what they wanted to do with their life; their parents.  As the old saying goes, sins of the father are visited upon the son.  We recognize that this is wrong, but the wrongness does not change that.  To me, this video is less about the kids and more about the decisions their parents made in life.

[Lustful Bride]

This thread is especially interesting to me as some French students now are speaking of intersectionality, racialized no white meetings and all. It's very very new here and totally not understood (including by me, I fear, and sadly the fact that they trashed several unis including one I attended isn't helping). So, following.

I forget which university it was, but one of the major campus protests featured safe spaces...that were segregated.  No whites, or no men, or what-have-you.  This got upped at the Evergreen College debacle, where basically all the minority students demanded that all the white students not show up to class for a day.  That's how Bret Weinstein got in the news, because he refused to comply with the demand.

Things like this, do much more damage for the strive for equality than anything else. What if someone is biracial? Are they denied altogether?

How long until its "No Jews allowed in our safe space"  "No Hispanics allowed" "No Blacks in our safe space" ? How long until it then turns to "Today people of race X are not allowed to come to this college at all."

I can understand safe spaces and I am coming around to them, but racially segregated spaces...just saying it sets off alarm bells.

*Watches video* Hmm..some I agree with others I don't. Problem is I don't really know what to way to say voice my opinions. :/

[Darkcide]

https://youtu.be/jf5TEoo-EY0

[Regina Minx]

I read that as 'blind audiences'.  I've obviously been up too long.

Well, I'm sure at least some blind people go to orchestral performances...

[Eye of Horus]

Certain specific communities have a spiderweb of problems, all of which relate to and can reinforce others.  The centerpiece of what sits at this spiderweb is man's inherent distrust of cultures unlike his own, of "their ways are strange."

Yep. In general, getting people to integrate is hard. Even university students (who are generally thought of as pretty open minded) who go to universities that deliberately mix people of different backgrounds together in halls often ask to be transferred to stay with people who are more “like them”. And after WW2, the US Army spent vast amounts of money to develop techniques to enable soldiers of different ethnicities to work together effectively.

This is anecdotal, but I grew up in a mid-sized city, around 50k in population, in 'flyover country.'  We weren't majority-minority, but we did have a more-than-average presence at our schools.  Here's the thing.  As students, we all got along really well, regardless of appearance, and I think that had to do with culture.  We saw the same movies, listened to the same music, complained about the same things.  (And if we didn't, we considered that it really wasn't our business what other people watched or listened, most of the time.)

And this is the solution. If children of different backgrounds go to the same schools and make friends early in life, the idea of the other group being an “other” is lessened. It’s a generational thing and you have to be patient with it.

And to comment on the OP: yes, of course it’s okay to be white. But the people who feel that there’s something wrong enough with society that they need to go out and state is as a protest? They’re either misinformed, trolls, or genuine racists (and it’s fairly common for the latter to “hide” behind trolling). My advice would be to go and talk to them (and / or the people they’re engaging) as civilly as possible. Don’t ridicule them - at least not as a first resort. The trolls will just be amused, and many racists have extremely well-developed victim complexes.

[Oniya]

And this is the solution. If children of different backgrounds go to the same schools and make friends early in life, the idea of the other group being an “other” is lessened. It’s a generational thing and you have to be patient with it.

Funny thing - my daughter went to an elementary school that was in a predominantly white town (rural, midwestern US.)  She told me that it taught her that 'being a jerk has nothing to do with the color of your skin' - the 'jerks' were all the same race as the non-jerks.  She's in a more diverse setting in high school, (urban, northeastern US) and her social circle is fairly diverse as well.  The kids seem to look out for each other as well.

[Skynet]

Intersectionality isn't one of those things I ascribe to - mostly because I'm not even sure what the hell it is.  Seems like every third person I know talks about intersectionality, but it never sounds like the same thing.  ( https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/30/intersectional-feminism-jargon )  The linked article largely echoes my confusion about the term.

The one that I find most useful is the original definition, aka viewing racism/sexism/homophobia as inter-related instead of totally isolated cases of "who has it worse?" Oppression Olympics. Political groups warp and add on their own definitions all the time, and inexperienced people regurgitate the term. When in doubt, rely on the scholars who dedicate their lives to a subject over the average Joe/Jane on the Twittersphere...or establishment neoliberal figures like Hillary Clinton seeking to cash in on revolutionary street cred.

I still think the original definition has value, even if idiots misuse it for their own agenda. Much like how "freedom of speech" is still a valid concept in spite of people interpreting it to mean "nobody should criticize me."

[RedRose]

Growing up together, going to the same school, etc... It seemed to have helped a certain generation, but not so much ours. Also if your child is bullied, because white or black or green, you're not going to keep him there (if there's a choice) and then there's no more "vivre ensemble"... My area has like,  60 different nationalities, and is (was? sigh) known for its multi culturalism and tolerance. Despite this, assholes managed to attack Jews, Christians, Muslims, white people, black people, Asians, cops, doctors, soldiers, firemen... Now everyone is butthurt and defensive and feels threatened. I understand the ghetto temptation. I enjoy going around and see the African ladies in their boubou, the Indian ladies in their sari, the Chinese ladies and their sun umbrellas, the chassidic Jews in their garb, the day to day life is GOOD but yes I understand the temptation because of a minority of assholes.

[Tolvo]

In regards to the original posted question, I find it similar to people saying White Lives Matter/All Lives Matter which I find to be rooted in racist ideology. People are not generally saying it is not ok to be white or that white people don't matter. So to assert that there is comes off like creating a threat to make it sound like people are oppressed or maligned for being white as a whole, similar I find to Neo-Nazi rhetoric of people afraid of the White Genocide.

[CriminalMindsFan]

A little off topic but I hate that some believe that white's can't be victim of racism or hate. They defend that belief by saying a majority can't be a victim of racism or hate.

[RedRose]

A little off topic but I hate that some believe that white's can't be victim of racism or hate. They defend that belief by saying a majority can't be a victim of racism or hate.

Me too. I can show them some niiiiice areas...

[Lilias]

Racism and prejudice are not the same thing. Racism is institutional; the suffix -ism is used to denote a system (which, at least in the west, is a system of white supremacy). Prejudice is individual; anyone can be prejudiced towards anyone else, with or without factoring in their skin colour. POC can certainly be prejudiced towards white people, but that is not racism because there is no system in place that oppresses white people.

[HairyHeretic]

My understanding was that racism was the belief in the superiority/inferiority of one race compared to another, which then manifests itself in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity. If it is being done through an official or social system, wouldn't that make it institutional racism? Racism at the personal level is still racism, if A is reacting badly towards B as a result of their perceived ethnicity.

Racism is a form of prejudice, but humanity has never had a shortage of ways of dividing the world into us and them, and treating them badly as a result of it.

[Scribbles]

Racism and prejudice are not the same thing. Racism is institutional; the suffix -ism is used to denote a system (which, at least in the west, is a system of white supremacy). Prejudice is individual; anyone can be prejudiced towards anyone else, with or without factoring in their skin colour. POC can certainly be prejudiced towards white people, but that is not racism because there is no system in place that oppresses white people.

I've honestly never been a fan of this push to redefine racism as the word has none of these conditions attached that people are pushing for. There is no, "You're only racist if..." attach power, privilege, majority, and so on as needed. If you discriminate against someone because of their skin colour, you're racist, end of story.

[Skynet]

Coincidentally, I made a very topic about this issue: The Different Definitions of Racism.

Throwing my two cents in, racism as defined as an institution is a legit definition in sociology, but sociologists also separate by both the individual and systemic levels. Overall, white people in the United States do not suffer from institutional racism, being the numeric and political dominant group. But they can suffer systemic discrimination in other countries. Many white Slavic immigrants in Turkey (and blonde women in general) often suffer discrimination at the hands of police based on the perception that they're prostitutes. Prostitution is legal in Turkey, and there are many Eastern European women in sex work there, but a combination of factors (less legal representation, police harassment, etc) result in discrimination on the basis of ethnicity and race beyond an individual level.

As for my two cents, debates of this nature should settle on a common definition, otherwise everyone talks over everyone else. I should also warn people to be very wary of people who use a definition to deflect someone's faults and prejudices. "I can't be racist, I'm X" or "this person can't be racist, he doesn't believe in a Master Race!"

[la dame en noir]

Coincidentally, I made a very topic about this issue: The Different Definitions of Racism.

Throwing my two cents in, racism as defined as an institution is a legit definition in sociology, but sociologists also separate by both the individual and systemic levels. Overall, white people in the United States do not suffer from institutional racism, being the numeric and political dominant group. But they can suffer systemic discrimination in other countries. Many white Slavic immigrants in Turkey (and blonde women in general) often suffer discrimination at the hands of police based on the perception that they're prostitutes. Prostitution is legal in Turkey, and there are many Eastern European women in sex work there, but a combination of factors (less legal representation, police harassment, etc) result in discrimination on the basis of ethnicity and race beyond an individual level.

As for my two cents, debates of this nature should settle on a common definition, otherwise everyone talks over everyone else. I should also warn people to be very wary of people who use a definition to deflect someone's faults and prejudices. "I can't be racist, I'm X" or "this person can't be racist, he doesn't believe in a Master Race!"

Thank you! You took the words right out of my mouth.

Being that I"m one of the few vocal POC/WOC in this forum, I haven't said much in a while because this forum "seems" too be more white than anything else. If I say anything about how I feel, how the world works for me, and how I've experienced things, I have often been told to shut up - that I'm angry(angry black woman stereotype) and been "educated"

So It's nice when others get it.

[blue bunny sparkle]

Thought you all might be interested in this:

The vandalism of the Rothko Chapel in Houston, Texas.


It is a small Chapel dedicated to all faiths and inclusive of all. It also includes 14 paintings by Mark Rothko as well as many books and spiritual texts from different religions. Outside there is a reflecting pool and a large sculpture dedicated to Rev. Martin Luther King.

Website for those interested: http://www.rothkochapel.org/learn/about/


Yesterday it was vandalized with paint and littered with the "It's okay to be white" tag.

Link for those interested: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/gray-matters/article/Houston-s-Rothko-Chapel-vandalized-with-paint-12931429.php

I personally find it terribly sad that such an inclusive space was targeted with something that brings about separatism.

[Scribbles]

I personally find it terribly sad that such an inclusive space was targeted with something that brings about separatism.

Unfortunately, that's probably why it was targeted, these people aren't exactly fans of inclusivity...

[Captain Maltese]

Thought you all might be interested in this:

The vandalism of the Rothko Chapel in Houston, Texas.


It is a small Chapel dedicated to all faiths and inclusive of all. It also includes 14 paintings by Mark Rothko as well as many books and spiritual texts from different religions. Outside there is a reflecting pool and a large sculpture dedicated to Rev. Martin Luther King.

Website for those interested: http://www.rothkochapel.org/learn/about/


Yesterday it was vandalized with paint and littered with the "It's okay to be white" tag.

Link for those interested: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/gray-matters/article/Houston-s-Rothko-Chapel-vandalized-with-paint-12931429.php

I personally find it terribly sad that such an inclusive space was targeted with something that brings about separatism.

Allow me to be a little dubious. In the near past a number of other cultural places have been vandalized. It is my distinct impression that this is some times counterprovocation; acts done by one side with the intent to put the blame on the other political side of the spectrum. Yes some people are really so blind to the consequences and counterproductivity of their actions that they would do stuff like this and think they make a statement, but this is the 21st century and trolling isn't just an online thing any more.

I hope there were security cameras and that the guys who made this 'art' get to make a statement before court. I HATE vandalism.

[Oniya]

I read some of the articles, and it implied that security cameras were not in place at the time of the incident - possibly due to the 'it can't possibly happen here' mindset.  (Honestly, I can't recall ever seeing security cameras in any type of chapel in my life.)

There was mention of pamphlets being scattered, though.  Fingerprints would be my first instinct.

[elone]

Fortunately no permanent damage.Mentioned they may put security cameras there.  Some more information here:

https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/rothko-chapel-vandalised-with-white-supremacist-messages

[Prosak]

It is ok to be white, or any other race. I think the reason people would feel the need to put signs up like this is because there is this feeling of animosity towards whites these days. A justified feeling, as there are groups right now which hold open animosity towards whites. And other groups can easily be perceived as having animosity over whites, such as modern feminism. It is undeniable, that most white americans, mostly males feel like they are under attack. Im certain people may feel they are not actually being attacked but as I stated, the notion and feeling is undeniable. The problem is not, is it racist to say it is ok to be white. The problem is, they feel the need to say it! So I personally implore those reading this comment to look into themselves, modern political landscape, as well as what these people may be going through. And ask. Why do they feel attacked for being white? And what can I DO, to make a difference and remind everyone, we all have a place in the conversation. We are all ok to be human.

[Skynet]

It is ok to be white, or any other race. I think the reason people would feel the need to put signs up like this is because there is this feeling of animosity towards whites these days. A justified feeling, as there are groups right now which hold open animosity towards whites. And other groups can easily be perceived as having animosity over whites, such as modern feminism. It is undeniable, that most white americans, mostly males feel like they are under attack. Im certain people may feel they are not actually being attacked but as I stated, the notion and feeling is undeniable. The problem is not, is it racist to say it is ok to be white. The problem is, they feel the need to say it! So I personally implore those reading this comment to look into themselves, modern political landscape, as well as what these people may be going through. And ask. Why do they feel attacked for being white? And what can I DO, to make a difference and remind everyone, we all have a place in the conversation. We are all ok to be human.

Or it's just a smokescreen for hate groups, as has been demonstrated earlier in this thread. I get the fact that there are dumb identity politics types who phrase things very poorly or outright do hate white people in general, but those who go far right and aligning oneself with bigoted groups makes me lose all sympathy for those people.

[Lustful Bride]

Or it's just a smokescreen for hate groups, as has been demonstrated earlier in this thread. I get the fact that there are dumb identity politics types who phrase things very poorly or outright do hate white people in general, but those who go far right and aligning oneself with bigoted groups makes me lose all sympathy for those people.

+1

[Prosak]

A smoke screen? A lot of white people out there feel like their race is being vilianized right now. Look all over the internet past the trolls and the bigoted, lots of people feel like white people are being vilianized. And if it is a smokescreen, then it was a smokescreen voted for our president. Because Trump is only a radical result of people not knowing how to retaliate against radical leftism.

[Prosak]

Upon reading the rest of the thread I've seen the links you describe, my comment was a response to the Initial post. However I stand by the opinion that white Americans feel vilianized by the left.

[Lustful Bride]

A smoke screen? A lot of white people out there feel like their race is being vilianized right now. Look all over the internet past the trolls and the bigoted, lots of people feel like white people are being vilianized. And if it is a smokescreen, then it was a smokescreen voted for our president. Because Trump is only a radical result of people not knowing how to retaliate against radical leftism.

Yes, a smokescreen. It isnt exactly as bad as 4chan and other online places make it look. Sure, there are moments where people seem to jump on the hate wagon (epsecially on tumblr) but there isnt some shadowy war on white people. The main source of this feeling is the sensationalist and overblown reporting by people on the extreme right making every little act of racism or bigotry against Caucasians look far bigger and more grandiose than it is. Or they take something that looks like it might be based on that, and spin a yarn to make it so. Though there are also extremists on the left who make every little thing seem as if it is a racist act even when its done out of ignorance or really not that offensive. The two sides are feeding into eachother and cooler heads fail to prevail.

Don't forget that we also have more Nazis and white supremacists proudly walking the streets than in the past decade, and its only further enflaming feelings on both sides. People on the left are moving to sniff out any sign of racism and people on the right feel like they are being lumped in with the racists and some are possibly joining them as a result of that and its all becoming one big clusterfuck.

Trump's election has something to do with this, but its not the sole reason for why he was elected. It had a fair bit to do with many Americans fed up with the establishment and feeling that this was the greatest middle finger they could ever give to the government. (And possibly some Russian involvement.) And we are all now suffering for it. *crying inside at the mockery he has made of the US*

[Twisted Crow]

I feel that it is dangerously ignorant to presume intent behind a message like this. The same might be said for overly critical speculation. The statement is too open-ended and it does not display an attack a target, nor does it declare any tone of superiority. All that can be gathered from what is written is perhaps enabling or perhaps consolation. To transpose the sentence like this into "White Power!" or something similar is... well, just remarkably ignorant, even if that is the intention. The point is, we don't truly know the intention behind the word. We might have racists say it, we might have others say it. All we have for options is speculation in this given equation.

If I were to say "Racism hurts our country", there is really no harm in it, as people might generally agree that we have problems with it, right now. However, were I to make an addendum to it, selecting a given party as the problem's root cause, however...

"Racism is hurting this country, white people need to wake up."

"Racism is hurting this country, black people need to quit making excuses."

... then I might see where one might make an argument on intention (vis-a-vi attacking a race or projecting, etc.). In this case I would be a hypocrite, declaring a problem I take issue with and perpetuating it. Anything else without more to work with is essentially presuming one's guilt before even considering their innocence.

I would like some of you to keep this in mind. Agree, be mad at me... either is fine. But please... think on this. That is all I ask.

[Skynet]

I feel that it is dangerously ignorant to presume intent behind a message like this. The same might be said for overly critical speculation. The statement is too open-ended and it does not display an attack a target, nor does it declare any tone of superiority. All that can be gathered from what is written is perhaps enabling or perhaps consolation. To transpose the sentence like this into "White Power!" or something similar is... well, just remarkably ignorant, even if that is the intention. The point is, we don't truly know the intention behind the word. We might have racists say it, we might have others say it. All we have for options is speculation in this given equation.

If I were to say "Racism hurts our country", there is really no harm in it, as people might generally agree that we have problems with it, right now. However, were I to make an addendum to it, selecting a given party as the problem's root cause, however...

"Racism is hurting this country, white people need to wake up."

"Racism is hurting this country, black people need to quit making excuses."

... then I might see where one might make an argument on intention (vis-a-vi attacking a race or projecting, etc.). In this case I would be a hypocrite, declaring a problem I take issue with and perpetuating it. Anything else without more to work with is essentially presuming one's guilt before even considering their innocence.

I would like some of you to keep this in mind. Agree, be mad at me... either is fine. But please... think on this. That is all I ask.

At risk of repeating myself...

Also another article, a church which Martin Luther King dedicated was vandalized by flyers, some of which contained that slogan. They were littered in the outdoor pond and elsewhere.

Not hard to find intent when it's this loud a dog whistle.

Staff edit: I have changed the word 'managed' to 'dedicated' at user request to prevent a triple-post. -Bly

[Skynet]

Also a less "editorial" news article than the last one I linked.

[Twisted Crow]

At risk of repeating myself...

Also another article, a church which Martin Luther King managed was vandalized by flyers, some of which contained that slogan. They were littered in the outdoor pond and elsewhere.

Not hard to find intent when it's this loud a dog whistle.

I think you may have missed my point. I am not talking about a group of people that might use the phrase... I am talking about the phrase itself and the dangers of canning everyone that uses these words with that group of people that might also use this phrase to bad ends.

You have BLM supporters preaching their cause, some declaring that their movement is something different than a small group of people under the guise of "BLM" openly assaulting people on the streets and subways and what not. That doesn't automatically mean that all people that say "Black Lives Matter" believe or support these actions. But presuming intent before even attempting to communicate breeds this exact problem.

Let us say a percentage of people are tagging buildings with "It's okay to be white". Let's say this percentage belongs  to white supremecy groups. Hell, let's say one white supremacist tagged it. I do not like vandalism. I don't care for the phrase itself, either. The equalist in me would dilute the message on a more human level.

But if a "group" tags this phrase with intent as some sort of attack or social breach (in this case, "race")... this does not mean that everyone uttering the phrase is magically racist, or generally malign of intention by association. That is generally my point.

[Lustful Bride]

But if a "group" tags this phrase with intent as some sort of attack or social breach (in this case, "race")... this does not mean that everyone uttering the phrase is magically racist, or generally malign of intention by association. That is generally my point.

eehhh to an extent. Its sort of like how the swastika existed long before the Nazis used it, and in placed like India it can actually mean Peace. But after it has been appropriated by a hate group, at a certain point it cannot be saved. The phrase 'its okay to be white' is so bland its designed to cause the controversy and arguments we are having now. And since white supremacists are appropriating it for their own uses, its best to abandon the phrase like a cancerous tumor because the cancer of hate already has it. Save your battles for another day and for something that requires this level of energy.

[Twisted Crow]

That is generally why I don't like the phrase. Heh, I had a similar discussion with some in our 'cerebral peers' group. Comparing a phrase to a symbol, however... is somewhat different. A crucifix might suggest that one is a hardcore Christian that hates gays and abortion. It can also mean that you have a polite God-fearing neighbor that minds his or her own business, and maybe not even be a bible thumper. It is just... dangerous to be overly hasty. But I generally agree with you.

[Lustful Bride]

That is generally why I don't like the phrase. Heh, I had a similar discussion with some in our 'cerebral peers' group. Comparing a phrase to a symbol, however... is somewhat different. A crucifix might suggest that one is a hardcore Christian that hates gays and abortion. It can also mean that you have a polite God-fearing neighbor that minds his or her own business, and maybe not even be a bible thumper. It is just... dangerous to be overly hasty. But I generally agree with you.

It is dangerous to be overly hasty and we must try to get all of the facts first, but certain symbols, when paired together with context clues and usage, have very clear meaning.

It does remind me of something that happened on Tumblr where someone posted image of Spain celebrating Semana Santa, the holy week being celebrated in Spain, and there are people known as Nazarenos, who dress in robes that sadly have a much different meaning on our side of the pond.

But tumblr lost its mind because they thought that it was images of the KKK, even after people started pointing out that this was from Spain and other cultures also dress in hooded robes and it means different things in different parts of the world.

[Twisted Crow]

It is dangerous to be overly hasty and we must try to get all of the facts first, but certain symbols, when paired together with context clues and usage, have very clear meaning.

Heh, dammit Bride, I can't be mad at you.  :-) But it doesn't really feel like we are at odds. You have always been civil with me, even so. But yes, I very much agree woth your point. It is important to look at the details that are there and acknowledge what is clear when all of the variables in the equation point to that outcome.

I have always been a man about the details, often disappointed by the people that take what is what is at face value. Or worse; pre-emptively choosing a conclusion that one likes based on what facts they prefer to consider without paying mind of other elements in the equation that don't readily comply with it.

Because my peers are mostly younger, I often get upset at how quick people can be to presume or draw grandiose conclusions that might overshadow the scope of whatever the real issue might be.

[Mera1506]

Considering many companies these days do diversity hiring and not just for more women, the BBC in Great Brittain had an add out saying: Whites need not apply... Now that is racist... And as a brittisch tax payer you're forced to fund the BBC.

[Captain Maltese]

I am not sure how relevant this is. Little Norway, up here in Scandinavia, have had quite an refugee influx especially the last decade along with the rest of Europe. I'm not wasting time on explaining European or Norwegian politics on this; the fact is none the less that we get a lot of newcomers from the Middle East and Africa. When I was a kid, seeing a foreign skin color in my own rural town was downright exotic. That is not the case any more.

Here is the strange thing though. We actually have LESS racism now than back when I was a kid. Even hard line semi-lunatic rabid right wingers don't throw around racist slurs, and you could round up every last of those guys in the whole country and fit them into two schoolbuses and there would still be empty seats. We have black and other non-white guys in the national soccer team, in the sprinting team, as international boxing champions, and so on.

What we have gotten instead is religious-ism. People who will be hard pressed to even call Nelson Mandela and Barack Obama black, will get into heated arguments about islam without blinking. Lines have been drawn in every European country by now and the liberal social left wing, long the dominant factor of politics in the entire EU, is wilting away as population after population takes a sharper and sharper right turn. The socio-economic effect of massive immigration under pretense of political asylum is getting heavy but your average European isn't really hurting under it. Not yet. But people who can hardly tell which parties are involved in their own parliament is discussing islam; moderate versus Wahhabism, who is funding the mosques, terror of course - but skin color is not part of the discussion. We may look down at other cultures, just like other cultures look down at us, but nobody are saying that the faults of the 'other' are something caused by breeding and that this or that color is 'superior'. This is a conflict which is not racial. Maybe we have all developed a little after all. 

[Skynet]

I am not sure how relevant this is. Little Norway, up here in Scandinavia, have had quite an refugee influx especially the last decade along with the rest of Europe. I'm not wasting time on explaining European or Norwegian politics on this; the fact is none the less that we get a lot of newcomers from the Middle East and Africa. When I was a kid, seeing a foreign skin color in my own rural town was downright exotic. That is not the case any more.

Here is the strange thing though. We actually have LESS racism now than back when I was a kid. Even hard line semi-lunatic rabid right wingers don't throw around racist slurs, and you could round up every last of those guys in the whole country and fit them into two schoolbuses and there would still be empty seats. We have black and other non-white guys in the national soccer team, in the sprinting team, as international boxing champions, and so on.

What we have gotten instead is religious-ism. People who will be hard pressed to even call Nelson Mandela and Barack Obama black, will get into heated arguments about islam without blinking. Lines have been drawn in every European country by now and the liberal social left wing, long the dominant factor of politics in the entire EU, is wilting away as population after population takes a sharper and sharper right turn. The socio-economic effect of massive immigration under pretense of political asylum is getting heavy but your average European isn't really hurting under it. Not yet. But people who can hardly tell which parties are involved in their own parliament is discussing islam; moderate versus Wahhabism, who is funding the mosques, terror of course - but skin color is not part of the discussion. We may look down at other cultures, just like other cultures look down at us, but nobody are saying that the faults of the 'other' are something caused by breeding and that this or that color is 'superior'. This is a conflict which is not racial. Maybe we have all developed a little after all.

I don't think that Islamophobia and not saying slurs in public is a good means of measuring progress. I can just as easily point to the USA Southern states today with this same logic. Beyond a few news-worthy headlines, you will almost never hear a white person say the n-word in public, and especially not when they think a black person may be present. But they'll be more than happy to say all sorts of other things short of slurs if they feel that they're in good company.

Also racism, especially European racism from what I've heard from friends from that continent, still manifests even with groups who look physically identical to the majority population. Milosevic's Serbian ethnostate and Nazi Germany were violently racist towards groups who in the present-day US would be seen as white.

Another thing to note is that many anti-Muslim groups aren't keen enough to differentiate or bother learning differences to ensure that they're not discriminating against a Sikh, an Arab Christian, etc. The Nelson Mandela/Obama argument is not exactly strong, as many racist groups have a tendency to be most hateful towards minority groups who who are both more numerous and present in their home countries than ones whose population is far-off and negligible. I recall hearing that in Paris many citizens are respectful towards sub-Saharan Africans, but lord help you if you have an Arab or Roma name.

[RedRose]

Roma people are discriminated upon in every European country I know of, and they do not have representatives that could help disspell this… It's very problematic.
I won't deny that racism in Paris and France in general, Arabs wise, has increased a lot since "migrants". I also won't deny that there have been changes leading to that, on top of course of plain racism. What you may hear in the fake news isn't "normal" or "everywhere", but it is happening, and for people who live there… OY. Thinking of course of Calais, but also of some Parisian neighbourhoods.

I do remember a time when discrimination both ways wasn't just as common. You didn't hear of getting stabbed for a short, you also didn't have 'normal' people openly saying they will vote for Le Pen in order to get rid of the Muslims. People also seemed to find it easier to drop a topic. It's like being hardcore militant about ANYTHING is getting normal. I'm still not really seeing people breaking up friendships of decades over what would be the equivalent of Hilary vs Trump, but perhaps it will become a thing.

[Lustful Bride]

Also racism, especially European racism from what I've heard from friends from that continent, still manifests even with groups who look physically identical to the majority population. Milosevic's Serbian ethnostate and Nazi Germany were violently racist towards groups who in the present-day US would be seen as white.

I've heard this in several places before. Once was from this discussion of how the Nazi Reich openly saw those of different countries as different races. French were something like the Franco race, the English were the Anglo race, etc.

There is also that scene in American Gods that touches on it.


Its sadly just a part of human nature. Even if we don't have any differences, we will find one, or invent one, to make one better than the other and give us a reason to fight. We haven't risen above the primal part of ourselves yet. We technically still have tribes, we just call them Countries now.

[RedRose]

Yeah, the Nazis saw various races, though not necessarily by country - Dutch people might well have been Aryan if they had the right characteristics, say. They also didn't recognize Alsace as being part of France at all.
Obviously it doesn't work as you can be German and very dark, just as some Jews and Romas are blond/blue (I did check for the last one on Google just to make sure, but yup!). French generally are more light Brown to dark Brown hair. Complexion varies wildly between South and North.

[Captain Maltese]

Skynet, my point isn't that there are not a lot of conflicts any more. But I like to think that they are mostly cultural. The dividing lines go between cultures, of which religions are one. Yes, bad things are said about this people group and that - and you should hear how Scandinavians are talked about in Spanish territories - but my point is that it is the cultures of our groups that are clashing. We single out the groups we disagree with, but not based on assumptions of biological superiority or inferiority.  I realize that 'we' is a pretty big word within the diversity of an entire global population, but it is the trend I see. And we were talking about racism.

[Skynet]

Skynet, my point isn't that there are not a lot of conflicts any more. But I like to think that they are mostly cultural. The dividing lines go between cultures, of which religions are one. Yes, bad things are said about this people group and that - and you should hear how Scandinavians are talked about in Spanish territories - but my point is that it is the cultures of our groups that are clashing. We single out the groups we disagree with, but not based on assumptions of biological superiority or inferiority.  I realize that 'we' is a pretty big word within the diversity of an entire global population, but it is the trend I see. And we were talking about racism.

You're coming from the point that social perceptions of race and the mindset of racism is mostly/entirely biological axis, and that culture and nationality are separate issues. Racism and bigotry are not limited to just thinking that say, there's an "Arab gene" which makes middle easterners violent or a "Latino gene" which makes people from Mexico capable of having many children. The "it's not genetics, it's their culture" can just as easily be used to argue in favor of discrimination, segregation, and otherwise poor treatment of a group. When it comes down to it, a lot of people freaking out about the Syrian refugees aren't just Neo-Nazis glued to biological determinism, but also people who say that the environments and circumstances said refugees grew up in necessitates sending them out of Europe in the belief that they will never integrate into society.

Also going back to the discussion on Jews and other European groups with physically identical features, what we think of as "race" is not set in stone but in fact the definition has changed based on societal perceptions. Italians and Greeks were not considered members of the white race in the USA until the mid-50s, and Irish were seen as their own race until the early 1900s. Latinos in the USA are actually a good example of this: they come in all skin tones and have diverse genetics, but mainstream America groups them as a racial monologue and in the case of many Trump supporters view them all as not-white. That doesn't make anti-Latino attitudes any less racist when they can look like all sorts of people.

[MisledBloodshed]

Thing i've noticed is the issue isn't so much with the question as the reasons behind the questions. There shouldn't be a question that its 'ok' to be white. There shouldn't be a question that it's 'ok' to be any colour, really. People are people.

The problem is, there's a whole lot of people out there that do think it's not ok to be something other than white, and those people tend to be white themselves. There's people out there that'd kill someone for being black. So there's a lot more need to push into general acceptance that it's ok to be black.

It reminds me a lot of people asking why there's no straight pride parades. The answer is because people aren't getting kicked onto the street for being straight. Whether or not it's 'ok' to be straight isn't an issue when everyone assumes its just the default. I would look into the motives of anyone who demanded straight pride in the same way i would look into the motives of people asking if it's ok to be white, and similar questions.

Sometimes it's just because there has been a degree of hostility towards the group that person is a part of and they don't feel like they individually deserve that hostility. They probably don't. But that is generally the best case scenario. The end result of the question often involves deflecting from the issues that group is causing by claiming themselves to be just as much of a victim as everyone else. Some people 100% use that intentionally and to their own advantage.

And please, do not assume I am accusing anyone here of doing that. I'm just trying to point out that it is a tactic that has been used to silence conversations on bigotry for a very long time.

[HairyHeretic]

“It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.”

― Terry Pratchett, Jingo

People will always find ways to divide up. Country. Ethnicity. Religion. Who you love. Region. Sports team. What street you live on. I'd like to hope we're slowly evolving past that, but I don't see it going away any time soon.

[KatieBower]

Seems to be there's a suggestion white people never face harassment or discrimination. I wonder if these people don't live in places where they represent the dominant culture. Step outside that world for a moment, and see how things work. Yo't have to go far. Even if whites are dominant at the macro-level in your country (certainly not a global phenomena!) you will find places where other cultures dominate at the micro-level.

I live in one such place.

As a tall blonde girl I stand out quite a lot. I get cat-called and harassed so often I lose count most weeks, and no my Muslim girlfriends don't get the same, even when we're out together, but I'm not blind to the fact that when we go to Broadway to shop at Sephora then the shoe is on the other foot. They're the ones being treated like outsiders. Shop girls ignore them (like they do me in my area) people say mean comments, one girl had her head-scarf ripped off by someone passing on an escalator for no reason. It's bullshit from either end.

I won't even get into stuff like finding work or other things which are all impacted as well (I'd get a job at said Sephora easier, they'd get a job at the local Myer easier for example) and before anyone says this is just because I'm a woman tell it to my house-mate who has among other things been put in hospital having a beer bottle thrown at his head from a moving car by a group telling him to get the hell out of "their" suburb.

And yes of course there are more places in this city where non-whites face this sort of treatment. Absolutely, and they are usually the nicer places with more wealth and opportunity, and this makes things tough. Totally, there are more places where non-whites are the outsiders (though I'll point out again globally speaking this isn't the case) but whether or not you can live and work in those places isn't guaranteed by white skin alone.

And sure I get it. I understand where that bottle came from, metaphorically, and Jesus I can sympathise with people who must generally feel like outsiders lashing out at people they view as having unfair advantages but many of those people aren't aren't especially advantaged (I know my house-mate certainly isn't) and do nothing to perpetuate those advantages that do exist (because they usually serve the wealthy, who we have little in common with) and we would eliminate them tomorrow if we could. Call me naive for thinking that way, but from what I see most people want basically the same things and are happy to  work with others to get it.

There are zealots on either side who don't make that an easy job. If you're posting, "it's OK to be white," signs, knowing the shit they will stir you're part of that problem, but if you'd respond to them with angry declarations about how no white person ever has faced discrimination or could benefit from such a message I'd say you might be part of the problem too. But our culture lionises people they perceive as "punching up," (even if that often means rich whites sticking it to poor whites) just as it demonises those seen as "punching down," so many are used to being congratulated for it.