Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

FeriaKaiser

Can you be racist to white people?

160 posts in this topic
12 minutes ago, Melchizedek said:

Maybe that's because you're busy reading other people's rather rational posts rather than your own irrational posts. You claimed that Asian cultures "didn't need to murder the rest of the world." When I pointed out that the Mongols were the only once who achieved enough dominance to try, and they got pretty far, you said it wasn't the same because they didn't sail across the Pacific and conquer the Americas too. Then you praise the Egyptians because they were too busy fighting the Hittites to take over all of Africa. It really just seems like your complaint is that white people did a better job of taking over than anyone else. I don't know if you've got an inferiority complex or what, but your posts read like a white supremacist's arguments, except its exceptionalism is negative. "Oh, Egypt? Doesn't count. They didn't take over the rest of Africa. Mongols don't count either. They couldn't conquer the Americas. Japanese? Lalalala."

 

Actually, Spain is so close to Africa that you can see it, and Moorish slavers were capturing Europeans both before and during the Atlantic slave trade. The Pope's declaration of the Dum Diversas was because of the fall of Constantinople, and Europe getting tired of the Moors constantly invading, enslaving, and generally being terrible. Or to put it another way, Africa went to Europe first (less than thousands of miles away). I don't know why you're acting like you're familiar with history (and geography) when you're clearly not.

Japan didn't even leave Asia period. But that's besides the point. Yeah, Northern Africa is in close proximity to mainly Spain. Looks like they stopped there though. Hmmm, still not negating my point, lol.

My argument and point was these civilizations didn't have to prove themselves. The inferiority complex always goes to those who have nothing but colonization to hold to for "proof" of their "excellence." Rather recent and absent throughout most if not all of history-- minus Greece, Rome and other Mediterranean empires.

History is something that has always been important to my family. Just because it wasn't taught by white people or told through a lease of white supremacy doesn't mean it's inaccurate. I have yet to state something that isn't true or have grounds. Something white supremacy wouldn't know about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maiohmy said:

 I have yet to state something that isn't true or have grounds.

Except that Europe is thousands of miles away from Africa. And that Europeans just randomly went to Africa for slaves because the Africans were so friendly and nice. And that the Japanese didn't leave Asia, since Hawaii certainly isn't part of Asia.

 

1 minute ago, Maiohmy said:

Looks like they stopped there though.

If by 'stopped there,' you mean that the Europeans started beating them back and Berber uprisings forced them to withdraw and abandon any plans for further conquest. Let's add that to the list of things you've said that aren't true. Like I said, you clearly aren't familiar with history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Melchizedek said:

Except that Europe is thousands of miles away from Africa. And that Europeans just randomly went to Africa for slaves because the Africans were so friendly and nice. And that the Japanese didn't leave Asia, since Hawaii certainly isn't part of Asia.

 

If by 'stopped there,' you mean that the Europeans started beating them back and Berber uprisings forced them to withdraw and abandon any plans for further conquest. Let's add that to the list of things you've said that aren't true. Like I said, you clearly aren't familiar with history.

Did Japan colonize Hawaii? You know exactly what context my replies are to. 

The point was that they didn't go on to conquer Europe. Does that need to spelled out for you or is context something you can't follow? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Maiohmy said:

Did Japan colonize Hawaii? You know exactly what context my replies are to. 

The point was that they didn't go on to conquer Europe. Does that need to spelled out for you or is context something you can't follow? 

False.

Morroco conquered all of Spain up to France, eventually repelled by a French-led crusader army. The Golden Horde conquered most of Eastern Europe, while the Ottoman Empire enslaved Europe from Constantinople to Venice.

The Ottoman Empire, in particular, was famous for taking young Christian boys as slaves (the Jannisaries). Said Empire was the most powerful force in all of Europe for ~400 years.

FYI: Constantinople was once the capital of Rome, but its name was changed to Istanbul when colonized by the Ottomans.

 

You even mocked said Europeans for their dark age, during which every neighboring non-white power took giant chunks out of the continent.

 

This didn't change until the Europeans mastered the use of the gun, an invention (ironically) brought to them by the Mongols. That's when the tables turned, and Europe started expanding beyond their continent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, eagleseven said:

False.

Morroco conquered all of Spain up to France, eventually repelled by a French-led crusader army. The Golden Horde conquered most of Eastern Europe, while the Ottoman Empire enslaved Europe from Constantinople to Venice.

The Ottoman Empire, in particular, was famous for taking young Christian boys as slaves (the Jannisaries). Said Empire was the most powerful force in all of Europe for ~400 years.

FYI: Constantinople was once the capital of Rome, but its name was changed to Istanbul when colonized by the Ottomans.

You're going on about civilizations conquering others....have yet to show me where it was racial. Where are there racialized systems? Still waiting for that. You're not negating my points. Just like the sound of your own words I guess(?)

44 minutes ago, eagleseven said:

You even mocked said Europeans for their dark age, during which every neighboring non-white power took giant chunks out of the continent.

 

This didn't change until the Europeans mastered the use of the gun, an invention (ironically) brought to them by the Mongols. That's when the tables turned, and Europe started expanding beyond their continent.

I'm confused. The moors are noted to be northern African. Northern Africans are considered white. So what do you mean "non-white?"

Edited by Maiohmy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Maiohmy said:

I'm confused. The moors are noted to be northern African. Northern Africans are considered white. So what do you mean "non-white?"

If that's the case it would be fairly shocking to know how the Cologne police managed to make racial profile on 900 North Africans this year.  Maybe not necessarily Subsaharan black, but definitely not European white.

Also from historical point of view notice that the Musilm slavers of that region would largely include Algerians and Berbers (the majority of the fighting force of the Moors).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Maiohmy said:

Did Japan colonize Hawaii? You know exactly what context my replies are to. 

The point was that they didn't go on to conquer Europe. Does that need to spelled out for you or is context something you can't follow? 

Actually, you originally said that white people 'killed everyone,' so your complaint about context is ironic and untrue. But no, Japan obviously gotten beaten badly by the US. The Moors got beaten by the French. White people won, so other people can't be held accountable for their actions. I guess it's just the white man's burden to be held to higher standards than all the loser civilizations that failed. Yes, that's a brilliant argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Maiohmy said:

Japan didn't even leave Asia period. But that's besides the point.

Didn't it take over China during World War 2. It's almost the same size as Europe, and has far more people.

14 hours ago, Maiohmy said:

Yeah, Northern Africa is in close proximity to mainly Spain. Looks like they stopped there though. Hmmm, still not negating my point, lol.

Battle_of_Tours - Umayyad advance towards the Loire

The Moors got as far as Poitiers, about half-way through France, but were turned back by the French in battle.

I've also read that the Moorish general that headed up the conquest of Spain and Portugal, said when he reached the Atlantic, that were it not for the Atlantic Ocean, he'd have kept going. If he had realised that the Atlantic could be crossed, the USA might have been a Caliphate now.

14 hours ago, Maiohmy said:

My argument and point was these civilizations didn't have to prove themselves. The inferiority complex always goes to those who have nothing but colonization to hold to for "proof" of their "excellence." Rather recent and absent throughout most if not all of history-- minus Greece, Rome and other Mediterranean empires.

The French were using boats and water-power to power their mills in Paris in the 12th Century. The British had indoor toilets thousands of years ago. But they didn't count that as proof of their excellence at the time.

14 hours ago, Maiohmy said:

History is something that has always been important to my family. Just because it wasn't taught by white people or told through a lease of white supremacy doesn't mean it's inaccurate. I have yet to state something that isn't true or have grounds. Something white supremacy wouldn't know about.

History has been something that has always been important to lots of families. Hence the interest in the modern British family tracing their history all the way back to Alfred the Great, over 1,000 years ago.

14 hours ago, Maiohmy said:

I have yet to state something that isn't true or have grounds. Something white supremacy wouldn't know about.

That would be relevant to a thread entitled "White Supremacists are right" or a thread entitled "Can you be racist to non-white people."

This thread is about if it is possible to be racist to white people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Palladium said:

I'm white and I've been a victim of racism.  I don't understand why racism is ever a laughable matter, regardless of who is on the receiving end.

 
 
 

Because it is different when you're "x" trait and someone (one individual or even a group of individuals) calls you "x" trait or makes fun of you for "x", as opposed to having an entire system set in place that judges you based on "x" trait - when having "x" trait puts you at a disadvantage due to deeply ingrained cultural attributions of that trait. Or can you not make the distinction?

It would be laughable for a white person to say that they are oppressed by racism, unless it were a violent act based on them being white, or if they lived in some non-existent place that has deeply ingrained history which systematically puts them at a disadvantage based on being white. Because the overarching problematic racism is a system based on it. So, as a whole, yes it is possible - but not in such a way that it bears an effect of racism. Of course, I cannot predict the future. For now, that's my take.

I have personal examples too - but as a white woman it is really hard for me to say what trait resulted in those experiences. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, terraczy said:

Because it is different when you're "x" trait and someone (one individual or even a group of individuals) calls you "x" trait or makes fun of you for "x", as opposed to having an entire system set in place that judges you based on "x" trait - when having "x" trait puts you at a disadvantage due to deeply ingrained cultural attributions of that trait. Or can you not make the distinction?

 

No, it's really not.  Racism is racism.  The color of the victim is irrelevant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Palladium said:

No, it's really not.  Racism is racism.  The color of the victim is irrelevant. 

You aren't picking up what I am putting down. Or maybe you'd like to read again, because I said nothing about the color of the "victim" but rather how you might define victimization. Your definition of racism isn't particularly important, if its on an individual level. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, terraczy said:

You aren't picking up what I am putting down. Or maybe you'd like to read again, because I said nothing about the color of the "victim" but rather how you might define victimization. Your definition of racism isn't particularly important, if its on an individual level. 

There is an objective definition of racism, which is what I'm using.  There is no need to distort it.  It only complicates the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Palladium said:

There is an objective definition of racism, which is what I'm using.  There is no need to distort it.  It only complicates the issue.

Think big picture. I am not saying individual levels of racism are okay towards white people or that they do not happen. But that in my POV (in the US) it will never be possible for it to be the same as for other people. Internalized racism which will greatly effect the entire race. That is the racism that is most important. 

Obviously people can be racist no matter what "color of their skin." 

Do you think you are deeply victimized for being white? Or that in the instances people had been racist toward you (from your view) had it come on top of so many other experiences and disadvantages you have had your entire life? Do people see you and cross the road? Do cops pull you over just cause you are you? It is not the same. 

Think of this:

 

 
 
...... added to this post 0 minutes later:
 
On 12/30/2016 at 6:46 AM, king con said:

only if they were a minority, 

for example in asian countries they call white people,

gwai, or ghost.

and to their face too.

 

just like how a white person might walk past a negro and mutter "nigger"

 

doing it in a place where you insult 90% of the population is going to go downhill quickly.

 

Edited by terraczy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, terraczy said:

I am not saying individual levels of racism are okay towards white people or that they do not happen. But that in my POV (in the US) it will never be possible for it to be the same as for other people. Internalized racism which will greatly effect the entire race. That is the racism that is most important. 

Obviously people can be racist no matter what "color of their skin." 

Do you think you are deeply victimized for being white? Or that in the instances people had been racist toward you (from your view) had it come on top of so many other experiences and disadvantages you have had your entire life? It is not the same. 

Think of this:

There are two sides to the quote from king con.  Whites and western culture are revered in modern China where the term he references in the cantonese dialect did have derogatory roots from ancient history. But the term morphed to relatively acceptable slang in modern vernacular.  Think of the meaning of moot and how it morphed through Internet misusage. This does not mean that it's considered perfectly acceptable in polite society.  There are other terms that are much more respectful.

There's absolutely no doubt that minorities are capable of racism, as we've seen in this thread from a black member. IMO, white hatred is the inverse twin of black hatred. What underpins racism on both sides, appears to be the tribal battle for dominance. Also IMO, the two sides need to gain perspective where it's okay to criticise white and black (or whatever colour) cultures but not in the extremist manner that we see of the racists, regardless of colour, one of superiority.

Frankly, I think BLM has taken it too far, that of no tolerance towards whites and fapping or disregard of black behaviours, no matter how bad. That said, their attitude is a perfect mirror of white racists and bigots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, terraczy said:

Obviously people can be racist no matter what "color of their skin." 

Do you think you are deeply victimized for being white? Or that in the instances people had been racist toward you (from your view) had it come on top of so many other experiences and disadvantages you have had your entire life? Do people see you and cross the road? Do cops pull you over just cause you are you? It is not the same. 

The question isn't really about how racism affects the victim of racism, though.  It's about whether or not a person can be racist towards a white person ... whether it affects their life negatively isn't the question being asked.  It's about the feelings and behaviors of the person acting or thinking in a racist way ... not the consequences of the racism exhibited.  A person can hate me because I'm white and it won't affect me ... but they're still being prejudiced against me because I'm a different race.  Prejudice based on race = racism.  Will my life be affected by it?  Very doubtful, as it's an individual, and not a systematic thing ... as it is for other people of color.  But the question is about whether someone can be racist towards a white person ... and, for some reason, people are saying it's not possible.  Of course it is.  Anyone can be racist towards any race.  Whether their life is negatively affected by racism is a different question altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair most people who use the slang/derogatory term aren't referencing the ancient history. 

Take gobbledegook and the term gook.

White people do it too.

Most of it stems from war propaganda.

 

Just look at the middle east conflict and the terms that have sprung up too. Or the war on drugs and junkie. Or the term pinko during the cold war.

I believe southpark did an episode in "goobacks" (greybacks?)

Edited by king con

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Maiohmy said:

You're going on about civilizations conquering others....have yet to show me where it was racial. Where are there racialized systems? Still waiting for that. You're not negating my points. Just like the sound of your own words I guess(?)

The Ottomans enslaved no Turks or Arabs, only whites.

The Japanese enslaved no Japanese, only the "subhuman" races of China and Southeast Asia.

The Indian caste system, by definition, was institutionalized racism on-par with slavery.

 

No blacks were involved, so they don't matter to you, huh?

 

Quote

I'm confused. The moors are noted to be northern African. Northern Africans are considered white. So what do you mean "non-white?"

That'd be news to all the North Africans I know. They speak Arabic, and are descended from Arabs. Do you also consider Saudi Arabia to be white? 

I mean, they do *wear* white, so maybe you're confused?

King-Mohammed-VI-of-Morocco.jpg

The current King of Morrocco, like almost all North Africans, is Arab. 

---

 

This tells me more about your worldview than you realize...you do not see tribes/nations/peoples, but merely tones of skin. Lighter than you = evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2016 at 6:46 AM, king con said:

only if they were a minority,

seriously?  its only possible to be racist to someone if they're a member of the minority group?

in a few years hispanics are supposed to outnumber whites in the USA... does that mean that when that happens wetback, when used by whites, will no longer be a racial slur?

 
 
...... added to this post 1 minute later:
 
On 12/30/2016 at 10:02 AM, Sajman said:

Yes, you can be bigoted towards white people. Whether that's racism or not is irrelevant. Semantics are meaningless, intent is what matters.

this should've been /thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shadeylark said:

seriously?  its only possible to be racist to someone if they're a member of the minority group?

Nah it's just easier to get away with it.

Like if a majority supports and votes for a racist bigot they are basically approving and letting him get away with it.

Anyone can be racist to anyone but depending on where you are would affect if you got away with it.

Edited by king con

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so is it your position that racism only matters if it stems from someone able to actually act upon it?  meaning, you acknowledge that the minority group can be just as racist as the majority group, but because the minority group possesses less power and influence their racism can be hand-waved away as inconsequential, and therefor is a non-issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2017 at 3:53 PM, king con said:

Someone once told me they called them that because it came from the slave days and it was from the sound of their whips?

Many Georgians were proud to call themselves "Georgia Crackers" who took the name from their ancestors who drove their cattle (cracking whips) south to Floridagrasslands. 

 

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/114806/where-does-the-term-cracker-come-from-and-how-disparaging-is-it

 

One character refers to another as a craker — a common insult for an obnoxious bloviator.

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/07/01/197644761/word-watch-on-crackers

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's the opinion that even if racism is directed at them, that they don't suffer meaningful disadvantages from it... Which would likely have a situational component (are they applying for a job with an anti white racist making the selection?)

Aside from that, racism against white people should be treated as the same kind of problem... Because attitudes of racism maintain separation between groups. The initiator being a black man doesn't stop the damaging effects on the health of the group. 

Best to deal with such things as a matter of principle and not in a self centered "My people have been hurt more, blah, blah" fashion.

Right and wrong driven by emotion, is inevitably corrupt.

 

On 1/9/2017 at 8:46 PM, eagleseven said:

That didn't change until the Europeans mastered the use of the gun, an invention (ironically) brought to them by the Mongols. That's when the tables turned, and Europe started expanding beyond their continent.

There's much practical benefit to being the more aggressive savage when new military technology arises. lol

The rich and civilized have usually lost their fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, themuzicman said:

Many Georgians were proud to call themselves "Georgia Crackers" who took the name from their ancestors who drove their cattle (cracking whips) south to Floridagrasslands. 

 

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/114806/where-does-the-term-cracker-come-from-and-how-disparaging-is-it

 

One character refers to another as a craker — a common insult for an obnoxious bloviator.

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/07/01/197644761/word-watch-on-crackers

 

Quote

"Cracker," the old standby of Anglo insults was first noted in the mid 18th century, making it older than the United States itself. It was used to refer to poor whites, particularly those inhabiting the frontier regions of Maryland, Virginia and Georgia. It is suspected that it was a shortened version of "whip-cracker," since the manual labor they did involved driving livestock with a whip (not to mention the other brutal arenas where those skills were employed.) Over the course of time it came to represent a person of lower caste or criminal disposition, (in some instances, was used in reference to bandits and other lawless folk.)

Spoiler

Slavery in America began when the first African slaves were brought to the North American colony of Jamestown, Virginia, in 1619, to aid in the production of such lucrative crops as tobacco.

weren't human slaves considered live stock in the slave trade?

and it makes sense slavers are now considered lower caste or criminal disposition or bandits/lawless folk...

 

apparently The 18th century lasted from January 1, 1701 to December 31, 1800 in the Gregorian calendar

so it makes sense it took 200 years for dissent to first spread amongst the slaves as they learnt the massahs language over 2 generations.

 

Spoiler

The American Revolution was a political upheaval that took place between 1765 and 1783 during which colonists in the Thirteen American Colonies rejected the British monarchy and aristocracy, overthrew the authority of Great Britain, and founded the United States of America.

not to mention they were probably a bit salty the revolution didn't help them at all. (GEDDIT?)

Edited by king con

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything that has the ability to be sorted in some way or fashion can and will be discriminated for/against.

Even treating someone better is a form of discrimination.

 

The word itself actually already tells it:

discriminate (v.) Look up discriminate at  1620s, from Latin discriminatus, past participle of discriminare "to divide, separate,"

www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=discriminate

Edited by dai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, king con said:

not to mention they were probably a bit salty the revolution didn't help them at all. (GEDDIT?

So, you're excusing racism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.