Originally posted by: Andrew1990
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Andrew1990
It doesnt need all that explanation. Racism should be tolerated on all sides to a minor extent just for cases like this. Im not saying open verbal racism against somebody should be allowed ,but rather racism such as a cartoon.
If you dont like the cartoon, dont read it. Let the people who do read it enjoy the laugh for the 5 seconds until they get bored.
Gee, interesting defense of racism from someone's sig says:
-March, Official White History Month
So you are saying I should not be proud of my white heritage?
Thank you fo rproviding the post which has triggered my refining my thinking on this.
I've long had a reaction that a 'Miss Black USA' contest was not too offensive, while a 'Miss White USA' contest is. That the United Negro College Fund is not so offensive, while a White College fund is. Even that I can see some sympathy for a 'Black Panthers', not so much for a White-only Militia.
Why is that, I've wondered? An obvious speculation could be bias, or perhaps a sort of knee-jerk 'the blacks are always the right side' reaction based on our cheering the end of slavery, the end of segregation, and so on. But that didn't seem at all like the right answer to why I reacted that way, and I've previously not been satisfied with the explanations I've arrived at.
Now, I think I can better articulate it.
The issue is that when a group is somehow discriminated against, treated unfairly, when it's a minority in a society and they band together, I think a sense of justness and fairness leads to feeling some sympathy for them to overcome the unfair obstacles, challenges, in their way.
But it depends on the context - the mirror which does not deserve sympathy is when those groups are pursuing not to overcome unfairness, but to gain unfair asvantage.
An example that comes to mind is how the early Nazi party in Germany was a minority in their own country; so why not feel 'sympathy' for their 'struggle'? Because their view was, as they said, that they were some 'super group' who had the great quality needed to pursue the domination of the world - they saw nearly all Germans as inferior, and said their might only be 5000 Germans in the entire country that were 'worthy', who would need to lead the rest to their proper role conquering the world.
Because they were out for superior advantage, to harm others, contemptuous of people, even though they were a minority they were not deserving of 'sympathy'.
If Christians in a Muslim country, or Muslims in a Christian country, bond together for community - more power to them. If their purpose is to try to conquer the country, no.
This is why a "Miss White America" contest in a majority white country doesn't get sympathy: because it's not about the white women overcoming the non-existent discrimination against them, it's about their expressing contempt if not hate for the other races who actually have good reason to bond, as minorities, about their expressing superiority, taking license to be exclusionary by hiding behind the excuse of 'they do it, so we can too'.
History in this country has no shortage of the covering of White history - it's black history that tends to get overshadowed, becuase of a racist past that did not include it.
That's why I object to your 'white history month'.
I see no good reason for you to 'take pride' in white history as a racial issue; take pride in it as a human issue, and include other races.
*If* you were a white and there was a history of white history being supressed and not credited, *then* you might talk about 'pride' in your race to counter the bigotry.
But without that, it's more about superiority and excluding others, than the sort of 'pride' that's trying to counter unfair bigotry.