Is it true that only white are capable of racism?

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
EDIT-

It is indeed a fact that whites are most commonly cited as "racists", "being racist" or accused of racism in mainstream society, while it is unheard of for a nonwhite (black, hispanic, etc) to be deemed/accused of such (the above)- against whites in particular. It is always a white accused of being racist against a nonwhite group, it is NEVER a nonwhite being accused of racism towards white people, although nonwhites are in fact racist against whites at times as well.

Mainstream society would have you think that while whites are capable of racism against nonwhites, whites themselves can not be victims to racism from non-whites. Is this true? Are only whites capable of racism? Can whites NOT be victim to racism from nonwhites?
edit on 10-12-2012 by TheIceQueen because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TheIceQueen
 





What this basically means is that only a white person is capable of committing and act of racism, only white people are able to be charged with hate crimes. I'm doubtful that "position of power" will include a racial minority who has a better job or more money who does something oppressive against a poor or homeless white person on the basis of race.


No. Because if I were to agree with it then I would have to agree that only white people are in power.



+4 more 
posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   
The word racism was invented by leon trotsky as a way to break down society and impose marxism. It will never be used for the purpose "equal rights", only as a tool for attacking dissenting voices.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TheIceQueen
 


. So from what I read It's ok and NOT racist to call our negro president a Ni@@er. Since he is in the position of greater power and influence compared to the rest of us.
I now can think of many statements he has made that will classify him as a racist if we are to use these new standards of what a racist is.

The damn lawmakers should just leave well enough alone. A racist is a person who objects strongly against another based on the color of another or another's origin of birth.

Its time to change the damn system. Im just sick..



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by TheIceQueen
 




Ironically, racism seems to be a very multicultural phenomenon...


+34 more 
posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by TheIceQueen
 


Is it true that only white are capable of racism?


No...but they're the only ones who will be prosecuted for it.





posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by BioSafe
 


That's the point. Obama will never be capable of racism because he is half a member of a protected class. So even as president he is still an "oppressed minority". Making him incapable of racism.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheIceQueen
The definition of racism according to the government and education has recently been changed to include new criteria. Now for the oppressor to be considered officially racist, they must be acting from a position of power. What this basically means is that only a white person is capable of committing and act of racism, only white people are able to be charged with hate crimes. I'm doubtful that "position of power" will include a racial minority who has a better job or more money who does something oppressive against a poor or homeless white person on the basis of race.

Do you agree with this? Is it impossible for any other group to be racist against whites?


Sine you are claiming that the official "government definition" has changed, can you provide a link? Which government are you referring to?

Thanks. Peace. Otter.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TheIceQueen
 


Mind if I ask where this information is coming from???



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by facelift
reply to post by TheIceQueen
 


Is it true that only white are capable of racism?


No...but they're the only ones who will be prosecuted for it.




Has anyone ever been prosecuted for the word cracker?



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by TheIceQueen
 


In Rhodesia/Zimbabwe there is an anti-white racism. The black government confiscates white-owned property and leaves crime against whites unanswered.

So in strict terms of power doing things out of a racial motivation, I would say it is an apt defintion. To narrow it down in scope to just a white-authority seems narrow minded.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by TheIceQueen
 


Lol.

I guess it depends on your definitions and parameters of "Racism". From there, I guess it depends how much one twists their own rules and doesn't apply those rules to this group or the other.

Being a, lol, "White" person, I can say I've felt the effects of "anti-white" or "White hate" prejudice and discrimination before; even from other caucasians. So no, I don't believe at all that white people are the only ones capable of "racism", hell, even from an irrational stand point it still doesn't make sense. That would imply some kind of inferiority on the part of "whites" regarding this postulated bigot-syndrome, or some kind of manufactured superiority, simply for being descended from European areas. It's #ing silly. People feel about themselves and others, through categorization or not, in many different, and many similar ways. It is not unique to any one racial or ethnic group. It's a by-individual phenomenon.

Besides, it's not just racism. People feel derision, all the way up to the level of disgust or hate for people, for plenty of other reasons. Racism is just one of the hardly-legitimate forms of expressing this aspect of our minds. Seems that some people just have a better grip on not seeing others as less-than, even still, for any actual reason that seems, well, reasonable.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by mOjOm
 


I recently went back to school and this is now what they're teaching as fact to the new generation of college kids.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   
This is sad. Anyone could be racist against anyone. A white person could be racist against white people. A black person can be racist towards a hispanic person. This makes no sense. What also doesn't make sense is how white people seem to be the only people taking # for being racist.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheIceQueen
The definition of racism according to the government and education has recently been changed to include new criteria. Now for the oppressor to be considered officially racist, they must be acting from a position of power. What this basically means is that only a white person is capable of committing and act of racism, only white people are able to be charged with hate crimes. I'm doubtful that "position of power" will include a racial minority who has a better job or more money who does something oppressive against a poor or homeless white person on the basis of race.

Do you agree with this? Is it impossible for any other group to be racist against whites?


Of course it is not impossible for "whites" to be the only ones capable of racism.

It happens all the time in places where caucasians are in the minority. It is very prevalent where I live, though I almost prefer it to be that way. Respect is gained based on a person's history of actions, rather than skin tone.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by TheIceQueen
 


let me ask you this, is this racist?


As most people would assume, the 'Black' in Congressional Black Caucus, refers to the ethnicity of the congressperson. This principle was put to a test in January 2007.[6] Freshman Representative Steve Cohen, D-TN., who is white, pledged to apply for membership during his election campaign to represent his constituency, which is 60% African American. Hearn further reported that although the bylaws of the caucus do not make race a prerequisite for membership, former and current members of the caucus agreed that the group should remain "exclusively black". Rep. William Lacy Clay, Jr., D-MO., the son of Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr., D-MO., a co-founder of the caucus, is quoted as saying, "Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. He's white and the caucus is black. It's time to move on. We have racial policies to pursue and we are pursuing them, as Mr. Cohen has learned. It's an unwritten rule. It's understood." In response to the decision, Rep. Cohen referred to his campaign promise as "a social faux pas" because "It's their caucus and they do things their way. You don't force your way in. You need to be invited." Clay issued an official statement from his office:

Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept—there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.' He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives.

from this wiki.Congressional Black Caucus

now if a group of white people did this or said this they would be called racist, and every al, jesse and clay would be calling for their heads.


edit on 10-12-2012 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie
reply to post by TheIceQueen
 


let me ask you this, is this racist?


As most people would assume, the 'Black' in Congressional Black Caucus, refers to the ethnicity of the congressperson. This principle was put to a test in January 2007.[6] Freshman Representative Steve Cohen, D-TN., who is white, pledged to apply for membership during his election campaign to represent his constituency, which is 60% African American. Hearn further reported that although the bylaws of the caucus do not make race a prerequisite for membership, former and current members of the caucus agreed that the group should remain "exclusively black". Rep. William Lacy Clay, Jr., D-MO., the son of Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr., D-MO., a co-founder of the caucus, is quoted as saying, "Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. He's white and the caucus is black. It's time to move on. We have racial policies to pursue and we are pursuing them, as Mr. Cohen has learned. It's an unwritten rule. It's understood." In response to the decision, Rep. Cohen referred to his campaign promise as "a social faux pas" because "It's their caucus and they do things their way. You don't force your way in. You need to be invited." Clay issued an official statement from his office:

Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept—there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.' He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives.

from this wiki.Congressional Black Caucus

now if a group of white people did this or said this they would be called racist, and every al, jesse and clay would be calling for their heads.


edit on 10-12-2012 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)




Thinking of Abraham Lincoln...

"One step forward, two steps back."


I find some of these "Vengeance" retaliations regarding "white racism", especially in America really damn strange. Major racism existed across the entire globe, and still exists today, everywhere.

People's inability to be unjaded, to live and let live, to just move on and not hate or deride for such stupid, utterly idiotic reasons. I mean really, we ALL have "reasons" to do so, hell, we all have "reasons" to basically want to hate and be disgusted by every bloody person around us, but we don't. In how we move forward, how we defy the odds, how we handle the bad, and come out with the good. THAT, is the final curtain.
edit on 10-12-2012 by ProperlyErrant because: (no reason given)


+2 more 
posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
An interesting thought considering the way history has unfolded recently. We live in a world where "social justice" and other like terms have been used more as political advantages and retribution for past generations than for their originally intended purposes.

Consider this: What would you say to a society that, under a white/caucasian leader:

- Formed groups for the advancement of white people alone
- Created groups that funded white college/educational ambitions
- Considered opinions from a regularly assembled caucus of strictly white-only members
- Broadcasted a television network named for the entertainment of white people
- Based post-secondary education financial disbursement on caucasian/western background alone
- Mandate a certain number of white's be accepted into post-secondary education programs regardless of test scores.

At first glance, it sounds incredibly racist. Then you consider America today. Where, under 44th President Barack Obama, we have the:

NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People),
UNCF (United Negro College Fund)
Legislative Black Caucus (which has the power, apparently, to deny applicants due to race alone)
BET (Back Entertainment Television)
Race based college aid disbursement/scholarships
Affirmative Action for US Colleges

We live in a country with an extreme double standard, and unfortunately the crimes of our generations past have been abused and capitalized upon to a frightening extent. Then again, when you have just ONE race in particular that envelops a large majority of unemployment, incarceration, welfare benefits, etc.... they become "entitlement programs."



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
My 2c without reading any replies.

No.

But some "races" due to history, arguably, have a more legitimate reason to be racist.

But as racism is an act not a thought, a minority "race" would have a difficult time acting on racism towards a majority "race".

So in reality the only race that can really act on their racism is the majority race.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Racism isn't just name calling.

It's actually oppression.

So if blacks rose up and enslaved whites, or made them sit at the back of the bus, and for decades after they received lower pay for the same jobs and more harassment by police etc. etc. etc. THEN the blacks would be oppressing the whites, and they could be called racist.

For now, only whites are racist.


edit on 10/12/12 by polarwarrior because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join