THE INCREDIBLE WHITENESS OF BEING

[Axulus]

Based on sovereign rights/past treaties. If a first nations couple adopted a black or a white baby, I think the black or white baby would be entitled to these special rights, no?

No.

Then in that case it is an inherently racist policy.

 

[Davka]

No.

Then in that case it is an inherently racist policy.

No.

It's a policy you clearly don't understand.

 

[Axulus]

Then in that case it is an inherently racist policy.

No.

It's a policy you clearly don't understand.

I understand it perfectly - any policy that requires a DNA test to make sure you are of the correct race before you qualify for something is by definition a racist policy. It's becoming clearer and clearer that you just make up definitions as you go whenever it suits you. Now your posts are starting to make a lot more sense.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The big race issue in Ontario is in regard to first nations people, and even off reserve they just don't mix all that much with mainstream society. Toronto is an extremely multi-cultural place, but I rarely meet first nations folks. I do know they get some special rights over everybody else because of ancient treaties. I don't really know where I stand on that.

Special rights for a group based on its race/ethnicity? If we were talking about black folk, you'd have a stand on it. Hmmm.

Oh don't be too disappointed. I do lean against the idea of allowing such special rights. I definitely oppose any such rights that exist off reserve, but those are rare. The rights they have on reserve is a whole different question than one of race. It is more a question of a quasi-sovereign nation within our borders.

 

[Davka]

No.

It's a policy you clearly don't understand.

I understand it perfectly - any policy that requires a DNA test to make sure you are of the correct race before you qualify for something is by definition a racist policy. It's becoming clearer and clearer that you just make up definitions as you go whenever it suits you. Now your posts are starting to make a lot more sense.

You really don't know jack shit about Native American rights, do you? You might want to read up on who is included in the roles, who is excluded, why, and who does the including or excluding. It has nothing to do with DNA, and a whole lot to do with politics, greed, and casino proceeds. It's the tribes who do the including and excluding. And not on the basis of DNA.

 

[fromderinside]

So, in conclusion, whiteness is another way to refer to an example of dominance thinking found among any race at any place where they are in charge of rule making.

All we have to do is find a way to make such thinking go away is to remove the main ingredient in that thinking, finding difference to one's advantage, and rip that turkey out with some sort of a DNA reconfiguration tool.

Got it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

First we had "Racism" defined so that only white people can be racist. Now we have "Whiteness" defined to mean white supremacy. I really have to question the agenda of the people who come up with these terms. By the mere choice of wording, it looks like they are going out of their way to create the backlash they complain about. You could get most people to agree that institutional racism favours white people (almost exclusively). You could get most people to stand with you against white supremacy. I have to wonder if such is really the goal here. Or if the backlash is relied on to drum up attention. The OP is blatantly and rabidly racist, unless you redefine what racism and whiteness mean as above, which most casual readers will not have done. And I am sure even Athena can see that.

Can you imagine the reaction here if somebody like Rush Limbaugh defined Blackness for us? And went on to give an OP like this one? And then said not all black people are showing Blackness, so don't complain unless what he says applies to you. He goes on to tell us that Blackness is this particular negative and shameful behaviour and attitude that many black people engage in? Would it matter if he had a good point somewhere buried under that? What if the behaviour described actually was something that some black people do engage in. Would our rolling our eyes at Rush show that we are full of Blackness?

 

[laughing dog]

Special rights for a group based on its race/ethnicity? If we were talking about black folk, you'd have a stand on it. Hmmm.

Oh don't be too disappointed. I do lean against the idea of allowing such special rights. I definitely oppose any such rights that exist off reserve, but those are rare. The rights they have on reserve is a whole different question than one of race. It is more a question of a quasi-sovereign nation within our borders.

A quasi-sovereign nation based on ethnicity. It is apparent that your principle is not iron-clad. Once one realizes that the world is not so clearcut, the advantages of allowing for exemptions becomes apparent. So if the gov't of the US had made a treaty with the freed slaves after the Civil war to give them and their descendants affirmative action, you'd be in favor?

 

[laughing dog]

What does that have to do with the principle that special treatment for a groups is wrong? Are you saying that if the USA had engaged in a treaty with all the freed slaves after the Civil War to guarantee affirmative action for them and their descendants, that people would not be whining about how evil AA is?

You claimed it had to do with race/ethnicity. I don't think it is possible to do a treaty with a race/ethnicity. This is a case of a treaty with a semi-sovereign nation. If the solution to slavery was to give the freed slaves territory within the united states that granted them special rights, I don't think it would be all that contentious. About as contentious as the treaties we have with tribal nations.

We disagree. I think there'd be a lot more "contention" because those black folk were getting special rights. I think the only reason the tribal nation treaties don't get more contention is that there are the relatively few native americans are usually concentrated into remoter areas. Black folk are not.

 

[laughing dog]

First we had "Racism" defined so that only white people can be racist. Now we have "Whiteness" defined to mean white supremacy.....

I find it hard to believe anyone can be this persistently obtuse by accident.

 

[fromderinside]

Can you imagine the reaction here if somebody like Rush Limbaugh er, AthenaAwakened er, Nelson Mandela, er, Mao Tse Tung er, Khan (Star Trek) defined Blackness for us? And went on to give an OP like this one? And then said not all black people are showing Blackness, so don't complain unless what he says applies to you. He goes on to tell us that Blackness is this particular negative and shameful behaviour and attitude that many black people engage in? Would it matter if he had a good point somewhere buried under that? What if the behaviour described actually was something that some black people do engage in. Would our rolling our eyes at Rush show that we are full of Blackness?

* ^{_{to emphasize FDI's logic}}

So, in conclusion, whiteness, blackness, yellowness, vulcaness, is another way to refer to an example of dominance thinking found among any race at any place where they are in charge of rule making.

All we have to do is find a way to make such thinking go away is to remove the main ingredient in that thinking, finding difference to one's advantage, and rip that turkey out with some sort of a DNA reconfiguration tool.

Got it.

Yes. Eye rolling counts.

** ^{_{Notice I only had to change one word, you choose from among depending on your character}}

 

[AthenaAwakened]

First we had "Racism" defined so that only white people can be racist. Now we have "Whiteness" defined to mean white supremacy.....

I find it hard to believe anyone can be this persistently obtuse by accident.

It's not an accident.

 

[Davka]

First we had "Racism" defined so that only white people can be racist.

Comprehension fail.

In Japan, the power is held by the Japanese, not the whites. So Japanese in Japan can be racist. In South Africa, the balance of power is shifting from white to black, and racism necessarily is shifting as well. White South Africans still hold most of the wealth (which is power), but the political power is in the hands of black South Africans.

The definition that racism = racial bigotry + power means that the racists will be different in different nations, depending on who has the power. In China, the Han Chinese are racist towards Uighurs, for example. In Israel, the White Ashkenazi Jews are racist towards the darker Sephardic Jews, and both groups are racist towards black Ethiopian Jews.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

First we had "Racism" defined so that only white people can be racist. Now we have "Whiteness" defined to mean white supremacy.....

I find it hard to believe anyone can be this persistently obtuse by accident.

So do I. I find it hard to believe that such persistent obtuseness can be accidental when defining "racism" in such a way as to make only white people racist.

 

[pegasus8]

I have to ping in on this one with my background........

When one is required to study racism, especially American racism and its social construct there is much ground to share and cover. With that said let us just try to keep it simple.

American racism has its origins based on our nations's beginning. The powers that be, see northern bankers, maritime interest and manufacturers along with their southern counterparts needed to keep the piss ass poor working slobs divided so as not to let them combine and form a political, economical, ethical, etc., power bloc. What would happen if poor white workers and the indentured allied with the Native American and blacks, both free and slave, joined forces to try to get a bigger slice of the economic pie 250 years ago? It is pretty obvious. So by manufacturing this myth of superiority of the "white race," or as Athena states this " whiteness," over the "other" peoples usually of color we can keep the masses divided. We can not let blackey, darkie, get over on us whiteys, right? So we are told to sink our ship so all of us drown from an economical position. It is like baling out the life boat so we stop so as not to let blackey survive. In doing so we chop our noses off to please the masters of the purse strings. This gives the piss ass poor white working slobs a belief in our sense of superiority which is baloney and a social construct to keep all of us down. Or in that sinking life boat.

Simply fast forward to today and we still see this division and mythical " belief" in one color having superiority over the blacks, browns, yellow, etc. Yet the reality as being simply pointed out by AA is that it is a $$ economic reality based on a social construct. In other words it is all B.S. to keep all the rats fighting over the same shrinking piece of cheese. It is a pretty clever system if you can raise above the forest and see the trees.

Now notice how, today, a lot of the white kids act black, dress, music, etc., in life and or at the party, symbolically, till it does not suit them, or till the cops show up at the party. Also the term "passing" only applies to black people trying to pass as being white. If anyone knows of white people trying to pass off as blacks physically then please give examples. Racist examples of Al Jolson and minstrels do not count.

Most people, insert whitey here, do not know what it is like to be hated for the color of their skin. They do not know what it is like to walk into a room and see people hate you for what you look like!

Also please read some authors and their works that give examples of racism in America. Try "The Awakening" - Kate Chopin, " Bastard out of Carolina," - Dorothy Allison, " Bluest Eyes, Beloved," by Toni Morrison, I can not stand her, at el. And for anyone who likes to talk about racism in America there is that little book that the great Abe Lincoln coined as the book that started the Civil War. It is called " Uncle Tom's Cabin."

And as the cherry on top of the creamy fluffy white cake being white, having fair skin, light color hair, eyes, etc., is a genetic defect. All modern day humans come from dark skin black people. Ah but this is another topic.

I am glad that some to most understand the OP, the message and the argument. It is all about whitey in American. Well the old America of player haters and Fox News sure love to push this hate. Why would anyone make a point of telling people that Santa and Jesus are white? WTF?

The reality is that the only color in the world that matters is "green, " green as in money. All the other stuff is B.S!

Thanks and peace out

BTW I am as white as a cracker. I mean does it really matter?

JBL

Pegasus

 

[Philos]

Folks,

I thought this thread was going to be about American teeth.

Alex.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I find it hard to believe anyone can be this persistently obtuse by accident.

So do I. I find it hard to believe that such persistent obtuseness can be accidental when defining "racism" in such a way as to make only white people racist.

They seem to have convinced themselves that their definition of "racism" was created in a vacuum, dispassionately, scientifically and by people without any agenda, purely to better study the phenomenon.

 

[Davka]

So do I. I find it hard to believe that such persistent obtuseness can be accidental when defining "racism" in such a way as to make only white people racist.

They seem to have convinced themselves that their definition of "racism" was created in a vacuum, dispassionately, scientifically and by people without any agenda, purely to better study the phenomenon.

Kick it harder! Boy, is that straw flying. You must feel really macho!

 

[Bronzeage]

Folks,

I thought this thread was going to be about American teeth.

Alex.

We do have nice teeth in the US, although a close examination will find the quality of a smile is directly related to one's place on the socioeconomic scale. This is one aspect of American culture which cuts through all racial lines.

 

[arkirk]

This has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with AM Radio waves. People exposed to AM Radio have a higher tendency to be counterproductive with their political choices. Blacks don't listen to virtually any AM radio. Lots of whites do. Hence the confusion.

And do you think the lower carrier frequency harms them...possibly instills a blindness to the suffering of others? I am white, but I am careful not to listen to any more AM than necessary (almost never necessary). Most of it is Clear Channel or Clear Channel lite. I have heard that too much listening to AM gives white people quite a Rush. It never affected me that way. It really isn't about whiteness, you know. It is about snake oil. The whiteness somehow just manages to creep in.