"Pale, male and stale"? Really?!

I wish I had more to say to this other than "I agree", but...I agree. Protesting racism and sexism should consist of racism and sexism against the "dominant" demographics (what some would erroneously label "reverse racism/sexism"). That does not help your cause, it only reveals your own hypocrisy. While promoting diversity in awards may be a positive thing, I do not believe in diversity to the exclusion of merit (if white men are winning awards more, it could simply be that they are more deserving. That alone is not racist, but could simply an unfortunate reality)--and it certainly does not warrant ignoring the achievements of straight white men. Many people who advocate diversity and fairness have lost their way.

 

This is a hard conversation to have online, but I'll give it an honest try.

We have to stop talking about this like is based on opinions and crazy ideas. They study of intersectional oppression is young, but we have various academic studies already that prove that the lack of representation of certain people in certain spaces is due to circumstances other than talent. That is simply just a fact.

Sadly, this is not how things work in the world. For things to change, you have to make it change. It happens through critiques of systems, scholarships, protests, conversations, and community building. You can't just "let it be" and hope for the best, because history and every single social movement has shown, it doesn't work that way.

Now, the main point of your thread is "Why can people make fun of white people and not be racist?"

Sociologists define racism is as systematic oppression of people based on the color of their skin. This is to say that oppression has to come from a Macro level and not a Micro level.

For example, a white person not hiring someone because they are black is prejudice not racism. It becomes racism when laws, people, governments and institutions come together to oppress a race intentionally or unintentionally. That is racism.

Racism is something that you cannot escape or walk away from.

With that in mind, a joke about against a white person is prejudice, but cannot by racism. The joke won't stop you from getting a job, won't land you in jail, and won't affect your quality of life. And you can walk away from it.

 

Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.

The above, is the literal definition of the word 'racism'. What the above user is describing is systematic racism, but racism in general goes far beyond what the law says or does - it's something that people say and do on a daily basis. You can argue that racism against white people is inconsequential in the sense that black people are not in a position to actively oppress them, but to deny that it is racism based on the literal definition is very stupid. If someone came up to me and called me a 'pasty cracker' then I would definitely consider it a racist remark. If someone physically assaulted me because I'm white, then I'd consider it a hate attack - and there have been countless examples of minority people physically assaulting white people for no other reason than because they're white.

People don't respond well to being attacked, berated or insulted - it's counterproductive. What the new radical left don't seem to realise, or refuse to realise, is that being hostile, confrontational and unpleasant doesn't achieve you desired results. Do you think I, or any other white people, will be receptive to these people when the first thing out of their mouth is 'Pale, male and stale'?

 

This is why this conversation is so difficult to have. There are so many layers that is almost impossible to have a dialogue.

In order to see racism as an issue that you can study and manipulated, you have to look at it from a sociology perspective, this means that the dictionary is useless to this conversation. Sociology defines racism like I described above.

For example, Cells is defined differently depending on the academic background that you are studying. In order for this conversation to happen, you have to look at the definition of racism from sociology.

 

I don't think racism against white people is an issue, as in comparison to the reverse it is almost nonexistent - but 'pale, male and stale' is racist. It isn't oppressive, but it is certainly racist.

I'm not interested in the sociological definition of the word 'racism' - I am only interested in the literal definition of the word as it applies here. A white person calling a black person the N word is racist - though according to your definition that wouldn't be racist, but prejudice. Well, in reality, it's both.

 

Well, thats a wrap.

Without the real definition, you will be unable to eradicate racism from our society or cause any major change.

Sad coming from other LGBT people, but it is what it is.

 

You mean without your definition of choice, we will be unable to eradicate what you classify as "racism", yes.

The word "racism" originally referred to a belief that there are intrinsic differences between the races; that later translated into the belief that those differences made one race superior to others, and that eventually translated to the looser definition of "discrimination based on race".

Any time someone claims that one definition of racism is the correct or incorrect one, they have an agenda behind doing so. It may be to guarantee that epithets like "white boy" are labeled "racist" (i.e. equally as racist as more infamous slurs) or it may be to ensure that only one type of racism is ever given attention--but there's usually a pretty clear motive as to why someone selects one of the definitions to the exclusion of the others.

Calling it something else does not suddenly make it less reprehensible.

 

It's actually not his definition. I've heard the same thing from all the sociology classes I took when I was in college. It's based on the work of people whose lifework is studying this stuff

Yes, smurf's agenda is to correctly define racism, which in the USA means one race rules above all the others by enslaving their men, killing their children via armed thugs, and discrimination through housing, employment, and admission into universities. But he also definites it incorrectly; tellingly, denying that a racist refusing to hire a non-white isn't racism but that's exactly what it is.

Why it is so important for us to have an understanding of white supremacy (racism) beyond the elementary school level is because subscribing to the erroneous belief that it's just hatred based on race allows whites to continue to steal from poc, namely the captured nations living within the colonized lands.

I know of someone who moved to New Zealand (one of the most racist places on earth) and she's a black woman from South Africa who's been oppressed both systematically, and by racist from that country, and this antipathy has had serious impacts on her well-being. This person is highly educated with a Master's degree, speaks English fluently, yet the white supremacest system has consigned her to lower paying jobs than her friend from Czech Republic who can barely speak English; despite that, she STILL has a higher paying job than my friend, she's accepted by the racists, and has a better life. In Canada, whites earn more than non-whites because of white privilege. When a white high school dropout can make more than a black woman who has a Master's, it's a sigh that that country is seriously fucked up.

In spite of all the harassments poc have to deal with, whites ignorantly insist that they don't face any racism, sometimes saying that Barack Obama's presidency is proof that; this despite that poc, not whites elected him. A talk with just a few black, Mexican, or Asian people should be enough to convince you of the painful reality of racism, and that it's still very much alive, no matter how much whites say it's not. Plus, the only reason whitey says it's not real is because they live insular lives and are isolated from poc, and as a result they lack any meaningful relationships and interaction with non-whites. When poc do complain about exposure to racism, whitey writes off with saying it's "paranoia" or "poc always whining" and their privilege affords them the benefit of never having to think beyond those arrogant assumptions.

 

Racism will never be eradicated from society, and no real change will ever take place, because of '#oscarssowhite' and '#palemaleandstale'. You are your own worst enemy and you perpetuate the very thing you claim to stand against. There is a reason why no credible individuals take anything you have to say seriously (I don't count sociology professors as credible - the fact that such a thing exists is laughable in itself). In order to enact true change you need to get the majority group on your side - but you're never going to achieve that when you're going around implying that being white is bad - and you're certainly not going to achieve anything by stating anything with too many white men is 'pale and stale'.

You need to put yourselves into the shoes of the casual, disinterested observer and wonder how they perceive you. It isn't favourable. You look ridiculous. Expecting me to agree with your shoddy line of thinking just because I'm gay is funny as well - and reveals how there is a groupthink mentality amongst the LGBT 'community' (I use that term very, very loosely) and how anyone deviating away from the lunatic fringes of left-wing politics is 'wrong' or 'bad'.

I'd like to think that one day you'll understand but you probably won't. Your ilk will continue to rant angrily and then wonder why people won't listen. Keep up the good work - I'm sure your average black family really appreciates it.

 

@AtheistWorld The academic definitions of words are often quite different from the public's common understanding of a word or concept. In fact, most definitions arise first in the popular sense and then are later co-opted by academia and given more narrow idiosyncratic definitions. For the purposes of changing the hearts and minds of the majority, as imnotreallysure describes, telling people that what they familiarly and correctly, I might add, associate with the term "racism" is incorrect using the defense of Sociology 101 doesn't help the purported goal. Your conception of racism is accurate, I'm not denying, but so is the conception of it as any prejudice and discrimination based on perceived inferiority or superiority of the races. You could differentiate the two with a term like "institutional racism", but the two are both forms of racism.

I am not saying that to view racism in terms of systematic oppression is incorrect; I am only saying that you cannot ignore so-called "reverse racism" (I for the record loathe this term, but I'm using it to illustrate a point); you cannot ignore racism and prejudice when it occurs in the less-typical direction (i.e. "black against white" or whatever example you may have). Furthermore, your example in the last paragraph is very true--many white people do fool themselves into thinking "racism is over", which couldn't be further from the truth. At the same time, a person who insists that "pale, male, and stale" is racist or sexist is not undermining other forms of racism. The two are both examples of racism.

This to me seems more than nothing like "well, X race had it worse, so racism against Y race doesn't really count". That isn't how it works.

@imnotreallysure This is a problem with many who fight for social justice; they are often very divorced from the opinions of the masses in general; their goals are idealistic, steeped in academia, and impractical. At the core their ideas are probably beneficial, but execution of the ideas requires more than putting down definitions that don't fit your agenda and worldview.

 

You have expressed what I was trying to say far more eloquently than I ever could. These words fall on death ears though. Universities give these people a platform to talk out of their arse and label the resulting diarrhea 'academia'.

 

I find it very silly to think that someone can't be racist or prejudiced because they are a member of a minority or once oppressed group. Racism is racism and prejudice is prejudice.

 

I don't know if this was directed at me, but I'll debunk this (and there's a lot of bunk in here).

Again, if you're appropriating the experiences of poc who experience real racism and likening the uproar against racism to the racism poc experience and saying that some twitter hashtags are comparable to the enslavement, theft, rape, killing of generations of people of color, and hostility they face, you're creating problems in the absence of real problems. The pinnacle of racism against whites is some hashtags on twitter, and this may be hard for you to comprehend, but that's not racism. Racism = oppression and poc, being treated like they're not humans, are in no position to oppress you; if some hashtags on twitter really upset you that much, then that just shows you've never experienced oppression.

Of course the average observer doesn't care because racism benefits them, with whites getting the privilege of their suffering mattering, whereas the suffering of poc, especially those in the middle east not mattering at all; this is why the Paris attacks, while having very few casualties, was treated like such a big deal, even though the French Military has killed thousands of more brown bodies in the Middle East since then. You see, it's no small thing that white privilege prioritizes an oppressive group who's viewed as human and who's suffering is treated as human, meanwhile the casual observer treats the suffering of poc with as much grace as they would a rock on the sidewalk.

You can call it shoddy all you want, but coming from someone who may never have stepped on a university, it doesn't matter what your opinion is; the foremost authorities on sociology have agreed on the more accurate definition of racism that smurf proffered, and their work, their insights, are what matter.

The evidence is there for everyone to see that white ignorance is one of the reasons white supremacy still exists with the 'casual observer' not having any idea how bad inequality is, which is why they have this perception that blacks are whiners because they think they're more better off than they actually are. Either that, or they're just unwilling to give up their piece of the stolen pie and don't want to admit that their ancestors did barbarous things, things they to this day profit off of, but that's not the problem of poc.

 

You're not debunking anything - you're just rehashing the same shit that you've posted countless times already - but, as much as I have no respect for you as a person, or for anything you have to say, I'll address a few points - even though I feel that I'm starting to repeat myself.

You're attributing things to me that simply aren't true, by putting words into my mouth. I never equated a twitter hashtag to systematic oppression of ethnic minorities - my point is pretty clear and self-explanatory. You're not going to enact change while you act in the manner that you do - you know, self-righteous little shit. You're more than welcome to think that racism against white people isn't a thing or can't happen but ultimately that doesn't matter - racism is not defined by positions of power or ability to oppress. That is one form of racism - but it is not the only way racism manifests itself. Unless you're thick, it's not that hard to understand.

The casual observer will care about racism to a limited extent, but this has little to do with white people completely disregarding the struggles of black people or any other race. People, as a general rule (there are exceptions), regardless of location, race, gender, sexuality or upbringing, care more about themselves, their immediate family and 'their own'. This doesn't at all equate to white people being completely ignorant to what ethnic minorities face in Western countries, but more of human nature - your average white person is more concerned with their problems, then the problems of people they don't know. This is true of any race - and one reason why black people show outrage when black people are killed at the hands of white people but show less concern for other 'people of colour'. The entire Oscar farce was fixated on the lack of black actors, rather than the lack of ethnic minorities in general.

This is why people say, in the UK, showed such solidarity with France in the wake of the Paris attacks - it hit a lot closer to home for us, not necessarily because they're white but because we consider them a close ally and we're very similar in many ways. It felt like an attack on a close friend.

You're wrong - though not for the first time. I am a university student.

---------- Post added 25th Feb 2016 at 06:45 AM ----------

Anyway, regardless of all of this posturing and obfuscating, the general point remains unchanged and no less true than when this thread was first started - ignorant or otherwise, the majority are not going to listen to you or take any notice of what you have to say when you continue to patronise, deride, berate and insult. It's as simple as that. You can complain endlessly about how selfish they are or how they are disinterested in the suffering of 'poc' - but unless you're willing to stop being such an obnoxious human being and engage with people in a much less hostile manner, coming automatically from a position that you are undeniable right (because you're not - honestly), nothing is ever going to change.

 

I wouldn't say that social media isn't enacting change in an age where people are finally rebelling against this backwards, retrograde system with Jeremy Corbyn emerging as a powerful figure in your land and Bernie Sanders gaining traction over here in the USA. What we're witnessing is exciting, and Sanders and Corbyn's rise is certainly indicative of the people being sick of Capitalism and neoliberalism, and since their rise does owe a lot to social media, it's inaccurate to say that BLM and social media can't impact politics. We're living in a new era, one where almost everyone has internet access. Thus they're able to get informed opinion on issues, and if they're being honest they will admit there's a major problem with racial inequality not just in the west, but worldwide.

As for racism, I still don't think the twitter hashtags count as actual racism, not when you compare it vs racism against black folks and other minorities. Ok, in your eyes, it is maddening to see the #pale,male,stale or whatever else is trending. For people of color, so-called "minor" acts of aggression would be something like being invited to a party in an affluent area and having all the people staring at you, as if to say you don't belonng. Or it could be in work where you have covert racists getting mad because they expect a poc not to be good at their job and when they are they scrutinize them and act over-bearing if they surpass the expectations of a racist.

Fine, I'll concede that point. It's not entirely based on race, because just before the attacks, there over two hundred Russians killed in a passenger plane in Cairo during a terrorist attack, and nobody cared about that either. You're also right that you share the same values as them: France supports secularism and the UK supports it but only for white French people and English white people. You share equality, justice and liberty, not for otehrs but for yourselves. For the Arab world, they arm ISIS and have historically overthrown secular governments all around the world.

You're wrong - though not for the first time. I am a university student.

---------- Post added 25th Feb 2016 at 06:45 AM ----------

If I called anyone ignorant, it wasn't meant to malign or offend anyone, I called them ignorant because they were--and there's evidence of their ignorance with survey to prove it-- and it's not like others here don't do the same, especially with the anti-Christian slant on this forum that's so strong that Christian members have been banned for no reason. If you say Mormons are anti-science or whatever, is it hostility or are you merely making a point that the religion has very improbable beliefs that don't jibe with science? When I say they're ignorant, it's not from hostility, it's just because it's the truth, but I will phrase it more politely if that's what you want.

 

Hmm, that depends on what you mean by poc. If you're talking about those in the west, then yes, the conditions of their life, often significantly lower than whites, and consigned to a state of servitude (but not slavery) wouldn't be considered slaves, but for those unlucky ones not in the west whose lives are imbricated in tragedy, violence, and pillagery from Europeans, and their existence is one of slavery with western owned corporations paying them far less than a dollar a day for their work, and westerners, even the 'working class' make a profit off it seeing as the west gets all of its wealth from their labor. For this reason, I would say there's no white working class, because they're not exploited as it's understood by Marxism


Finally, you can't define racism to make it mean what you want it to mean to put forth your counter argument, because words don't lose their meaning just because people don't agree with them. Imnotreallysure may not like the meaning of racism, but just because he along with most people don't like what racism is, it doesn't mean the meaning of the word racism is lost, nor does it mean that you can radically redefine racism into

You are wrong. As a white person you're entitled to white privilege, but you're not entitled to define what racism means. You and Imnotreallysure are white, and just because you choose to decide that racism is just prejudiced/aggressive behavior doesn't change that racism is structural, institutional and systemic. The fact that two white men here are trying to decide what what racism is, and how it affects the lives of poc is yet another showing of white supremacy on this forum. Consequently, even though you don't experience any of the ways racism manifests, you can reduce racism to mere twitter hashtags, or insults, but you're still wrong.

First of all, the French, the British and the Americans caused the conflagration in the Middle East, and they armed the terrorists who murdered the civilians in Beirut and they armed the same terrorists who killed over 200 Russians in Cairo. I've said this before but my posts were deleted for some reason: Racism in France is what radicalized the muslims who carried out the attack, and months prior to the attack a national survey showed that over 70 percent of the French people said Islam had no place in France.

I found all the people posting French flags on Facebook ridiculous for the same reason I dislike the Remember 9/11 memorials: it's just an ideological tool to serve imperialism and further attacks against Muslim countries. These memorials, and #solidaritywithFrance hashtags give imperialists an insurance to continue their murderous actions. The next time we hear about a strike in the middle east, people like Imnotreallysure will go: So what, they deserve that for 9/11, and for the Paris attacks. They're designed to induce a feeling of apathy towards muslims. Tellingly, point 2 is exactly the problem. The middle east is burning and it's France's fault; they set it ablze which is why those muslims, radicalized by racism, tired of seeing their family get butchered, decided to make France bleed for once.

By mourning for the French, and not the people of the Middle East and the Russians, you're basically saying you don't care about them; they're lives aren't as important as the westerners. And if the lives of people who live among us matter, why aren't we placing memorial pictures of those murdered by police on social media? Certainly, if this is about remembering lost human life and not ideological, we should post memorials of people slain by the police, no? Innocent lives killed by thugs that possess a license to kill, yet nobody seems to care about them.

Ask yourself what's more tragic: a murder or a suicide? The victims in Beirut, the slain Nigerians killed by Boko Haram, the 230 Russians killed in Cairo, all their deaths were murders. The attacks in Paris were a self-inflicted wound.

I don't know how things are where you live, but it's the exact opposite here. I'm not a poc but I attended a diversity training once for a job I had and during that seminar I got to listen to a woman of color talk about her experiences trying to mingle with whites, and how traumatic it was to the point she had gotten nauseous amid the ordeal. Her experience was an instance of aversive racism. That means whites didn't want to be in the presence of a non-white. Often, this type of racism isn't outright aggressive, but it's still noticeable and upsetting to the victims of it. She had gone to an Christmas party after being invited by a colleague and upon getting there she was eating her food when she realized all the white women were eyeing her. She wondered why they kept staring at her and it hurt her so much that she couldn't finish her meal.

Hostility at places of employment ranges from the more outward actions, such as leaving nooses in a black man's locker to calling them the n word, to the more subtle things like saying something along ,"Wow, you did such a good job writing that software for us; it was so good it was almost as if a white person did it" One of the privileges of being white is to never have to hear such abusive backhanded compliments...

Poc know that those incursions are just a foretaste of what they'd get if they accepted a white colleague's offer to a party, and that's why they tend to stick with their own.