FOX's 'God Warrior' new episode strikes a nerve.

[DamienVryce]

Let me set my own opinion on races before I discuss this touchy subject. I have no problem with any race what-so-ever. However, I do abhor the 'cracker hating brother because my great great grandfather was a slave so you owe me'. Race discrimination has held this country back for hundreds of years mostly due to the white majority. Albeit, that was before the huge civil rights movements. But I digress, what really grinds my gears is the fact that if there is a movie with one racial slur against our 'colored comrades' then the movie gets banned, correct? Yet when a movie or television show (''Trading Spaces") is bombarded with blacks telling their children, who have the potential to clear all stigmas in the future, that "the white man is bringing you down" every morning and every other sentence and conversation is about how the blacks should recieve a large compensation(which is always money) from something that they didn't even experience themselves.

I am getting angry now so I will end at this: Why is it acceptable when there is racism against whites, and not when it's 'vice versa'? And why is racism of any kind being promoted!?

[hive_king]

I think its mainly two reasons. First of all, whenever someone points out reverse racism, they get branded at racist themselves. Secondly, i think alot of whites have something of a guilt over the history of discrimination, so they turn a blind eye to it.

[Bevis]

Sounds about right, h_k.

Except racism against the pale face isn't reverse racism. It's racism.

[hive_king]

Oh, I know, I just use the term reverse racism to distinguish between whites being racist and blacks being racist. It still means the same.

[DamienVryce]

I think its mainly two reasons. First of all, whenever someone points out reverse racism, they get branded at racist themselves. Secondly, i think alot of whites have something of a guilt over the history of discrimination, so they turn a blind eye to it.

Alright, I see your logic. Yet, I still don't understand why anyone feels any guilt about something that happened long ago and had nothing to do with them. I can see feeling a sadness for what happened but I could never feel guilt for what happened to their race because I had nothing to do with it, ergo I don't feel they need any compensation. Am I all alone in this?

[Snowdemon]

No you arent all alone in your thinking Damien. Just because something happened to your ancestors does not mean you need to be compensated for it.Besides, they are equal in a civil right sense, so what kind of compensation would be fair?

[DamienVryce]

Well, if there are any African-American users on p-web, I'm making a shout out to you, I want to know your opinions whatever they may be.

[Tcashon]

I know what you mean Damien.

We just don't hold Caucasians and African-Americans to the same standard in this country sometimes.

For example, why can Jesse Jackson, a man of large political influence, belittle the whites to help his African-American constituents feel better about themselves. No one says a word.

Cut to December 5, 2002. Trent Lott is at the celebration of Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday and he makes the following comment:

"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

Yes, Strom Thurmond opposed desegregation, but from the excerpt above I do not gather any racist language at all, race isn't even mentioned. Just because Lott might have thought that Thurmond was a good man does not necessarily mean that he agreed with his views.

My point is this, the statement was blown way out of proportion and out of context to the point that the man had to resign. Would this have happened the other way around -- I very much doubt it. We will never be truly equal until we start holding everyone race/sex/orientation to the same standard, a goal that might or might not be possible.

[luminousnerd]

It frustrates me as well.

In my area of the country, at least, there is very little racism against blacks left. I know there are plenty of parts where it still lingers, but for me here in my corner of Utah, not so. And therefore none of the black people I make contact with have ever been subject to very much racism, and if they have, it was just as a means to make fun of the person, the way bullies always look for some flaw. But the bully would have found a different flaw if they were white and still made fun of them/beat them up/what ever they did.

My point is, all the time I hear blacks say, "It's because I'm black isn't it?" and implying that they are owed for the discrimination against their fathers.

Anyway it all boils down to this. I HATE racism and racists. But I think it is just as racist to assume that all white people are racist!

[hive_king]

Lum, Utah isn't like the rest of America. When an outsider visits Utah, its like being transported to another dimension, at least thats the experience I got when I visited SLC.

[Slim]

Yeah, "reverse racism" drove me nuts when I was in Richmond.

I've never owned slaves. I like black people. Beyond that, my ancestors were either in Utah or Denmark prior to abolition of slavery. Why, then, do I owe them for something totally unrelated to me? What more do they want?

These people I met would never admit that they were racist, despite refusing a handshake, and (one person) calling me a child of the devil.

... ?

[Matty]

I am getting angry now so I will end at this: Why is it acceptable when there is racism against whites, and not when it's 'vice versa'? And why is racism of any kind being promoted!?

My opinion, as a guilty liberal white kid: No idea is inherently too dangerous to express. Some ideas are bad and demonstratably wrong, but it a perfect world you'd be able to say whatever you wanted as long as you didn't actually cause harm to someone. However, some ideas are associated with dangerous practices, and the greater good demands that we censure them. And given our country's still very recent history, and still-current racial environment, it is much, much more likely that a black person will be discriminated against than a white person. So we're extra careful about racism toward blacks, and if we err on the side of being too sensitive, well, there are worse things.

And notice that the government is not involved. It's just society reacting to something.

[Ender97]

Hate to do this, but I have to throw my two cents into this one. First, something most people do not realize is that most of the Irish that came here before 1740 or so came as either indentured servants or kidnapped slaves. In fact one of my ancestors was kidnapped while collecting rents for his father who was in sherriff in the north of Ireland. He was sold at an auction in Boston, (in sight of where the liberty bell is now housed.) and spent over thirty years working on a farm in northern Maine. Please do not get me wrong, I am not for any sort of cash handout or anything like that. I just want to point out that not only Africans were brought here as slaves. In fact, more Native Americans were used as slaves in the western US then blacks in the south.
As to descrimination aginst white people, I live in a state that is about 60 percent or more Hispanic, as a white guy I am a minority! Yet acording to all the talking heads out here, Hispanics are the minority and I am the one that needs to have more understanding and make more allowances for them. My faminly has beem in the Southwest since Austin came into Texas, with some parts having been here long before that (native blood) but no one wants to make allowances for my culture.
Soon after the Civil War, the great-grandson of the Irish slave was comming home to Georgia on a train. He had just spent the last two years in a POW camp outside Chicago, and we escorting several ladies home. Outside Savannah he was dragged off the train by a group of African American union infantry and shot. His crime: trying to prevent one of them from raping one of the ladies under his care.
I am well aware that discrimination goes both ways. I just want people to be honest about about it and face up the the fact that as America changes so too does our need to look afresh at ourselves and out preconcieved notions.

[hive_king]

Ender, While I mostly agree with what you're saying that other cultures other have also gotten shafted, I must remain skeptical of "Outside Savannah he was dragged off the train by a group of African American union infantry and shot. His crime: trying to prevent one of them from raping one of the ladies under his care. "

One thing you will find when you study the civil war is that stories like these are very common among families of civil war veterns. I am not saying that this didn't happen, but it is unlikely. Often when a family member would do something the family member didn't approve of (fight for the wrong side, run away, become a baptist), or sometimes even when they did act honorably but died or disapeared anyways, it would lead to stories like this being made up. I mean, we're talking about a southern family that was probably hit hard by the war and by the emancipation of blacks either by losing their slaves if they were rich or having to compete with blacks for new jobs if they were poor. Not to mention Sherman's march to the sea made things worse. Many in the South also blamed blacks for the war, for obvious reasons. It only makes sense that a story would be told about brave chivalrous Jim being shot by evil, barbaric "yankee niggers" protecting a girl from being raped. I don't know how much evidence you have about this, but I suggest you do more research, there's probably alot more to the real story than you know. Also, do you know what year your ancestor joined the military?

[Ender97]

I well look up the name of the town for you. His Name was John Crozer and not only is the incident true, but atleast one band have composed songs about him, and the monument the town erected for him, in the last few years.
The family never owned any slaves, infact is they have thought that had bin the primary isue they may have fought for the north. He joined in the army for the mexican american war, was made an officer and served in that conflict. after the war his unit was disbanded and then reformed with in a few months of the secession. His name appers in the lists of POW's held in the camp there south of Chicago. My father still has his jurnal from the war years. It along with a few other items were returned to the family by some of the others on the train. This is why I can say what I do with some certinty. I am a student of history, and do check my facts befor I say them.

[Tcashon]

You may check your facts, but you definitely do NOT check your spelling.

[zeroguy]

You may check your facts, but you definitely do NOT check your spelling.

Yeah......that totally furthers the thread....

[Tcashon]

Thank you for calling me out on that Zeroguy.

Let me be a freaking spelling/grammar nazi dammit!


I'll try not to make short useless posts like the one I posted that one.


Oh yeah, and one more thing,

I hate you.

[hive_king]

So they actually have evidence that he was shot by buffalo soldiers who were try to rape a women? How accurate are they, do you know? Were any of the soldiers brought to trial?

[Matty]

*Sits for hours, mesmerized by Tsashon's avatar*

[hive_king]

Good to see you around, matty. Maybe you should get an avatar too.

[Janus%TheDoorman]

Well, if there are any African-American users on p-web, I'm making a shout out to you, I want to know your opinions whatever they may be.

Well, here's my two cents.

I'm a black guy, who's grown up in an area of South Jersey that's pretty racially diverse, so I can't speak for everyone, but this is what I think.

It's not so much the leeway blacks and other minorities, at least in America are given, as it is the leeway whites aren't. True, blacks seem to be the most liberal with what leeway they have, but I think that the undercurrent here is that white people in America have that annoying track record of oppressing blacks, where as blacks are relatively clean on that account.

In fact, the nonviolent approach of MLK granted African Americans the appearance of peaceful people merely wanting to to be considered equals. If Malcom X had been the predominant leader during the Civil Rights Movement, I expect this banter wouldn't be taking place right now.

Sure, black people would have gotten the rights they asked for. JFK came into office planning on granting many of them, and Johnson had the capability to push it through Congress, but the ideal had gained enough steam to carry on through itself.

The difference is that if Malcolm had been the leader, and black resistence had been laregly violent, we'd be marked with a history of hatred, the same way whites are now, at least in the eyes of many minorities.

This is largely untrue by now, though not entirely. Look at Lousiana where white schoolchildren hung nooses on a tree this year after a black student finally asked permission to sit there. Acts like this keep the fear alive that underneath the joviality, there's an actual will to opress and demean minorities, whether or not it's there.

If black movements in the fifties had been violent, the history of black mass violent action against whites wouldn't be as long as the storied history of slavery and white oppression in this country, but it would be much fresher in the minds of Americans. If you doubt how quickly people forget ideals when they're scared, ask a Japanese citzen that was alive in California after Pearl Harbor, or an Arab flying to New York even still today.

We aren't quite as open about it now - word spreads much faster around the world. You don't start a fight in school while everyone's looking, eh? You take them out back where word doesn't spread till the damage is done.

But, the point is still how people feel towards each other. Whites can't get away with it because everyone else is still wary of them, where as there's no point in history that whites can point to and say, "Here! You're just as capable of racism and oppression as we are!"

In America we've got another word for it. Or two, rather. Reverse Racism - hating because you are hated. People say it's the same thing, but it's not quite that, because it feels, at some level, justified. People feel sorry for the oppressed blacks, so no one blames them being mad at the whites.

The reason blacks can say these things and whites can't is that, while we don't look it in the eye, there's a beast in all, or at least most of us that hungers for dominance, and supremacy. We don't have a terribly clear example of blacks acting this way in America, so because we don't want to face it in ourselves, we give people the benefit of the doubt and hope the beast isn't within them, or that they can control it.

There's nothing genetic in black people that makes us more amicable - Africa is littered with the corpses of those whose lives went to feed the desire in the warlords of a hundred different tribes and nations. Enough that we make movies about it in Hollywood, but even then we don't look that beast in the eye and call it what it is.

Blacks in America have been united for a time against the common enemy of oppression, largely from whites, admittedly. But now, we're out in the open, stretching our legs for the first time. We - us, I mean, this generation of black community are the first born cleanly out into an America largely free of segregation and oppression, at least against blacks.

How long until history gives us a black man in America that will oppress others enough that they can be justified in their hatred of him? That man will be the one who evens the playing board, though I fear we may be forced to take one step back to take two forward.

Personally, I think Al Sharpton's running for that office, and rappers need to watch out for women, neh?

Please let me be clear and say that for the most part, I don't believe people are consciously racist in America, nor do I think that whatever actual, subconsious racism may linger is terribly prevalent in our everyday lives, but when an issue comes up, that old fear creeps into our minds, and we all know that fear can make the best of friends mortal enemies.

[Boothby]

Janus,

Welcome to P-Web, by the way!

but I think that the undercurrent here is that white people in America have that annoying track record of oppressing blacks

Umm...No.

My white European ancestors came to this country in the 1920's. I know from my own life, and my parent's lives, and my grandparent's lives that we never opressed blacks. Or anyone, really. Actually, since my mother's side of the family was/is jewish, we suffered a little bit of opression ourselves here and there. And since we're all northeastern liberals, we've pretty much been neutral-to-supporting of the black rights movement.

Do I, like, get to wear a badge or something that excludes me from black-against white racism?

[Janus%TheDoorman]

Thanks for the welcome.

Maybe track record wasn't the best choice of words, it's more like a black mark on the record. A sizable mark, and in the eyes of those who were oppressed, the defining mark. And don't forget that most adults in the country now, while not having live through a time when blacks weren't equal in the eyes of the law, were raised by those who were.

And, that's the thing about racism - the only badge that matters is the color of your skin.

Now, obviously skin color isn't a clear indicator of ancenstral homogeneity, but try to understand that it's nowhere near the conscious mind that these reactions take place.

All that happens is that somewhere in the back of our minds we see someone's skin color, and everything that someone of the same color has done in the past creeps in.

It's a survival tactic - you don't mess with things in nature that are black and yellow, right? Bees, snakes, and even a few lizards have adopted that color scheme to signal or imitate the signal of danger to keep predators at bay.

A minority in America sees a white guy, and regardless or him or his family's personal history, there's an unconsious wariness.

I'm not saying that excuses the resultant behavior, we all have impulses, but it's ultimately our choices and actions by which we should be judged. It's not nice, it's not fair, but it's human. The ugliest part of human, to be sure, but human nonetheless.

And, don't think that it's limited to just white people, it's anything that doesn't look like you, it's that natural fear of things that are different that gives rise to things like racism. Like I said, look at how we treated Japanese after Pearl Harbor, or Arabs after 9/11.

People are scared, violent beings by nature. Stamping out anything that might hurt you before it gets a chance is a great way to survive, if not a great way to live with other people.

We aren't so far removed from our history as we'd like to think, and it's going to be a much longer time before race relations between people are the way they should be. Some would even doubt that homo sapiens is capable of such a change, but that's not something I'm very happy with. I think it's a matter of getting people to understand why they feel the way they do, and then work towards a recognition of people not as white, black, or whatever, but just as people, and for us homo sapiens who are only so far removed from our eat-or-be-eaten ancestors, that's going to be a very long, hard road.

[hive_king]

You talk about skin being used as a badge and what-not, and about people knowing who to be afraid of because of it. I think that in our modern society, it's a two way street. I live in the middle of a fairly large city, and I am often taking public transportation. When I see a large group of black teenagers coming to the train station, or walking towards me, I usually get a bit scared. I've been mugged by African-Americans, and so have some of my friends. Especially in the inner city, I'm usually wary of African-Americans I don't know, especially if they're "ghetto".

[Janus%TheDoorman]

You're right, logically there's no need for most racism, or if there is than it should flow both ways. But, human behavior is anything but logical, and we're very quick to judge a people based on the actions of a few or based on their pasts, either personal or racial.

Even if we know individuals of a race shouldn't be judged on the actions of others, there's still a small degree of foreigness to other races, and so first encounters are very important between foreign peoples, and can often very much set the tone for an entire history of relations.

I wholly agree that racism, especially the one-sided view of racism that predominates race relations in America is totally illogical. All I'm trying to do is give the reason for people's illogical behavior.

[Jebus]

History is an organic process, everything grows and results from something that preceeded it. To say white-culture in America today has gained nothing from slavery, and black-culture today suffers nothing of it's past is to ignore the ripple-effects of history.

I'm not excusing anything with this, I'm just saying that the inherited guilt that allows reverse-racism to exist is perhaps more understandable because of the inherited benefits slavery brought to many whites.