posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:13 AM
Race certainly "exists", but upon closer examination, it seems that it's the cultural (or subcultural) elements that form the biggest differences.
Did some of those cultural differences emerge from some of the inherent or genetic characteristics of a particular group? Probably, at least to some
So, ignoring differences doesn't seem right, although I think that Gazrok's post has some insights I agree with.
Why exactly does the term "cracker" mean so little to those it is directed at? It does seem that most white people just aren't bothered much by
the term, and yet, if we look at the "n-word" in comparison, we quickly see that there is no comparison. This is clearly an important distinction,
but what does it mean?
Well, I wouldn't want to dismiss historical context here, obviously there are groups who carry some of this "baggage", and these sensitivities are
understandable. Blacks, Jews, other groups, who have some painful, and not-so-distant unpleasant history, are going to be more sensitive perhaps.
OK, so after saying this, why again doesn't the term "cracker" seem to have any "sting" to it? I think it's because whites fail to
identify with that slave-owner of the past, the guy cracking that whip. And for good reason. Most white people simply don't have much of a
connection to that world. Many are descended from later immigrants, Italians, or Irish for example, and the term is absurd of course from that
Of course, the other side of this argument is that there may be something in that other term, the "n-word", that blacks DO in fact "identify"
with, else why would it "hurt" so much? I know how that sounds, but could be there is something here, especially considering how dear that term is
within the Black subculture itself, the term being used internally as an insult for their own at times.
And yet, we can see that within the Black sub-culture, something may have been "needed", to counter that other term that did have "sting", and
continues to sting today. Not sure that's enough to explain it, but maybe a combination of factors are involved.
So back to the OP's contention about an agenda. I can see it both ways. Yes, there is "baggage" we all have from the past, justly or unjustly
applied, but baggage nonetheless. Is that baggage being "used" perhaps by those with an "agenda"?
I think it's very likely, considering what we know.
For example, the NAACP was led by Jews for decades, which seems odd. No doubt someone may assert that this is no negative thing, that it's nice
there were Jews back then, so concerned for their black brothers, etc. But this is at least a possible indication of something going on that does
indeed lend itself to a potential "conspiracy".
During the 1960's, with racial tensions high, were there people behind the scenes fanning the flames, promoting their agenda? Even just naturally
speaking, we can see how any perceived injustices could be used, taken advantage of, considering that violence often only needs a tiny nudge. It
seems logical at least, that people in power could have noticed this advantage, and made a decision to abuse it.
The unbelievably fast pace of changes that occurred in that decade are also something to behold. From the highest levels, the Supreme Court, huge
changes were pushed that couldn't have been imagined even a decade before. Big changes in immigration policies "coincidentally" emerged
simultaneously. The result, a nation that literally changed almost "overnight", at least relatively speaking.
"Who" exactly would benefit from such a dramatic change? Assuming these big changes were not completely "natural", or grassroots, etc., why were
they pushed through so fast?
In short, WHAT exactly is the "agenda", if there is one? What is the "bigger picture" here?
These are some of the questions we should be asking, IMO.