<p>So when Major Nagan declared New Orleans would be a “chocolate city,” that wasn’t racist?</p>
<p>And when I was filling up my car at a gas station here on the indian reservation and someone yells at me “Hey Whitey, fill up my tank too!” thats not racist?</p>
<p>When Nagin made his comment, that was stupid. </p>
<p>And when someone shouts “hey whitey” to you, that’s prejudice.</p>
<p>Think of it this way, do you really honestly think that the word “cracker” offends you just as much as the word ■■■■■■■■ offends a black person?</p>
<p>I hardly see how ■■■■■■ is insulting. The average black rapper probably says ■■■■■■ more times in a day a card carrying KKK member.</p>
<p>
Except it doesn’t do that. AA doesn’t benifit the poor blacks, but rather the rich ones who are already at a decent income level. </p>
<p>And cut out the crap about ‘people of color’. Please do not be condescending. You act if ‘people of color’ are somehow inferior, and we need AA to get ahead in life. I assure you, we do not.</p>
<p>This is racism at its best, collectivising ‘people of color’. It is surely not color that determines if people succeed. Asians are ‘of color’, yet they have higher scores on tests, they are very well of in terms of wealth, etc.</p>
<p>where in a students daily life is “flesh” referred to as only applying to caucasian skin?
I guarentee you not in the Seattle school district</p>
<p>AS I posted above- in my daughters classes- they have bent over backwards to steer teaching away from European influence.
They had in middle school an assignment to pick someone of influence to research and give a "one man ’ show on
they could not be american or european
many of the books they use in lit- are not written by europeans-
Seattle is one of the most liberal cities in the country-
I have heard teachers argue and try and raise money for trips to Cuba so they can study social injustice- while ignoring the struggles of asian immigrants in their own neighborhoods.
I have watched teachers give blacks a liscense to skip class, but still give them a passing grade because “they have it rough at home”
( the teachers knew or cared little about their actual home life- many of the parents had an academic background, either working in city govt or for the university)
Not seeing what is really going on- i.e. holding blacks to lower standards- is what is hurting them.
Why should a student be discriminated against by their peers for wanting to succeed at school?
Why is that OK?
Why are parents allowed to call in excuses for their students being “ill”, when they are skipping classes and the school knows they are not at home ( they were picked up for burglary the same day)
Yes some families have a lot of difficulties- but when Asians are the highest performing students in the district- despite income-I don’t think that “white” priviledge- is to blame for all the students who are failing</p>
<p>There are many examples of this, among them:
Mean High School GPA
Rank Score Group
1 3.40 Chinese
2 3.36 Japanese
3 3.29 Korean
4 3.18 Vietnamese
5 3.04 White
Percent Passing 7th Grade WASL Reading Test
Rank Score Group
1 82.1% Korean
2 75.0% Japanese
3 73.9% East Indian
4 66.4% White
Percent Passing 7th Grade WASL Math Test
Rank Score Group
1 75.0% Korean
2 65.4% Japanese
3 65.2% East Indian
4 62.1% Chinese
5 50.1% White</p>
<p>I never said it was needed to get ahead in life. That is racist to assume that, I would certainly never make that assumption.</p>
<p>Personally for AA I favor a combination race and socio-economics. A wealthy African-American doesn’t need any incentive to apply to college, they probably already are anyway. Although a poor black kid from the ghettos would be a great benificiary of Affirmative-Action, much more than a lower-class white kid (although s/he too deserves some recognition).</p>
<p>As for the rapper using ■■■■■■ more than the KKK does. There is such a huge difference it isn’t even funny. If you don’t see how ■■■■■■■■ is insulting, I’d suggest you learn some history. First do a wiki search of “slavery” then “Jim Crow.”</p>
<p>Thanks for sporting such a condescending attitude again. The point I am trying to get across is this; why is it not ok for a non black to use the word ■■■■■■■ but perfectly all right for a black man to do so? This is what is ridiculous. You can try to rationalize this any way you like, but you will face little stumbling blocks such as ‘logic’ and ‘facts’.</p>
<p>I’d like to point out first off, they aren’t really ■■■■■■■■ they are saying “■■■■■” which is a term of endearment. As opposed to when a white person says ■■■■■■■■ they are probably using the term to insult. Which leads me back to my original question which is… do you really think the term “cracker” is an insulting as the term ■■■■■■■■■■■■■
<p>The answer is of course, no. The term “cracker” holds absolutely no previous racist connotations, at worst its just a little rude… ■■■■■■■■ on the other pulls out centuries of racism and oppression.</p>
<p>Is it racist if a Black American refuses to hire a Mexican worker because of his race? </p>
<p>Just_browsing…give me a break…the word is the same. It is wrong to call people names that are offensive to them…and no one gets to judge how offensive that may be. Accordingly, cracker is an offensive term to many…don’t use it.</p>
<p>The N word is tough because some people don’t mind certain people using it, but would object to others using it, even if the intent is the same.</p>
<p>Oh of course it is wrong to call people names. No disagreement there. I’m simply talking about impact.</p>
<p>For example, you possess absolutely no qualms about saying the word “cracker” (or typing it a least) publically on these forums. However, when you approach the word ■■■■■■■■ you feel compelled to say “the N word.” I’m not criticizing you for this, its probably best that I use that terminology as well. What I am doing is I am citing it as an example of how even you will readily acknowledge that it is MUCH worse to use a word like “the N word” than it is use to use a word like “cracker.”</p>
<p>AA is certainly racist.</p>
<p>Also, is only one of these racist? I feel both of them are.
Situation 1: A KKK member beats up a black guy, steals his wallet, and kicks him, saying “Get out of my neighborhood, ■■■■■■■■
Situation 2: A Black Panthers member beats up a white guy, steals his wallet, and kicks him, saying “What the **** you think you’re doing in this hood, white boy?”</p>
<p>As for individualism being racist?
“The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”</p>
<p>That means that affirmative action proponents and all other collectivists on both the white and non-white sides oppress minorities - they look at people as collectives - races - instead of the individuals they are.</p>
<p>Just_Browsing, I guess I would rather use a word that I find offensive then using a word that might offend others. Also part of this is conditioning, I was taught that using the N word adds pain to pain…I even had a hard time asking for Dick Gregorie’s book when it came out so many years ago. In it he wrote something like this.“I decided to name my book ■■■■■■ so when my mother hears that word being used she can think that it just people talking about my book.”</p>
<p>Neverborn, you make an excellent point.</p>
<p>Once again you aren’t see individualism the way Seattle schools are… they are simply saying that if you say African-Americans are in the socio-economic status they are in because they are lazy, you are racist.</p>
<p>“However, what I believe they ARE saying is that all white people are benificiaries of white priveledge, whether they like it or not. Does that mean they are racist? No. But, if they help contribute to the continuation of white priveledge, then yes.”</p>
<p>You obviously have never worked or vsitied the many parts of this country where there are extremely poor whites, with no indoor plumbing, no job opportunities, and little hope for the future. Blacks do not have monopoly on poverty and hopelessness, and if anything, have been given more chances, vis a vis affirmative action, than several other groups who are not sought out for the sake of “diversity”, even if they are privileged economically. </p>
<p>Other groups in the US have to make it or not on their own steam. Go see how much “privilege” someone white has in a rural area where the unemployment rate is 40%.</p>
<p>I feel the pain of blacks, but they have been often singled out for opportunity, and whining statements about how tough it is do not hold so much weight anymore when:</p>
<ol>
<li>Other groups succeed under the same or similar difficult circumstances</li>
<li>Blacks have opportunities such as special scholarship programs thrown at them. Consider how many scholarship programs there are in cities where any HS black grad gets a free ride in college if they get a B average, and although several hundred are eligible, only 20-30 make it. That is the situation in the city where I am from, and it is a constant source of irritation, when other groups that are equally poor do not get that chance.</li>
</ol>
<p>collegialmom is right. I support the elimination of Affirmative Action. But if an AA must exist, I feel it should be color-blind and operate ONLY on economic status. It’s great that poor blacks (or even rich blacks) have scholarships aimed at them. That’s fine. But then again, what would happen if I made a scholarship just for white kids? </p>
<p>Exactly.</p>
<p>There are certainly words which are as hurtful to whites as the N word is to black people, though I have not personally been in a position to experience them. Over the years immigrants from many countries have been called slangy “fighting words.” In some areas of the country today people from the wrong side of the tracks, the holler, or the socio-economic stratum are routinely referred to by prejudicial words. Just because the targets cannot be identified by skin color doesn’t meant these words are not hurtful.</p>
<p>Mom: There are very few if any. Cracker, hick, redneck, whitey, honkey … they don’t offend me. Although I don’t consider myself a hick or a redneck. The only word I’d say comes near how offensive the “N word” is would be the “C word.”</p>
<p>I think it may be different for less privileged whites on the margin, when people are trying to insult them. There are phrases that are prejudicial and hurtful and will make them angry, esp if racial tensions are involved. These words are often combined with other not so complimentary phrases, and may lead to some unpleasant consequences. Has anyone seen drunk racial verbal warfare? Works both ways…</p>
<p>I have no idea what “C” word you could be talking about… though I can think of a few that would offensive to women.</p>
<p>Oh and collegialmom, do not get me wrong. There certainly are a large number of poor whites. Poverty is defintely not exclusive to minorities. But here is an interesting question, how many poor white kids are joining gangs? Mmmm, not so many…
Now how many poor black and Latino kids are joining gangs? Ahhh, far too high of a number.
Why are poor minorities joining gangs in higher rates than poor white kids? Who knows. However, that fact alone shows that socio-economic status isn’t the only factor that goes into white priveledge. And SOMETHING needs to be done to counteract it.</p>
<p>Neverborn: Being a confident, well-off white person, if I were called something like honkey I would just laugh, but if I were living in a trailer park in poverty through no fault of my own, and were routinely subject to taunting and name-calling at school, don’t you think it would have an effect?</p>
<p>And since you apparently can’t think of these words, I’ll remind you: spic, kike, wop, and others were all used in sincere hate speech a few generations ago.</p>
<p><<spic, kike,=“” wop,=“” and=“” others=“” were=“” all=“” used=“” in=“” sincere=“” hate=“” speech=“” a=“” few=“” generations=“” ago.=“”>></spic,></p>
<p>All to people who either still aren’t considered white or to people who just a few decades ago weren’t considered white.</p>