"Everyone's a little bit racist......
- Thread starter IADad
- Start date
Xero said:
Things are usually much more complicated. What is missing in the equation is that one must put things in context-especially historical context. "Calling all White moms" would not be appropriate (and rightly so) because there is a lot of bad history in the US associated with racism. "Calling all moms of color" doesn't have the negative history...but perhaps the author of the thread should have used more tact.
My point is that CONTEXT is always important.
It is important to know history, but is it so necessary to dwell on century-old wrongs? And the "context" is costantly changing.
Yes context is changing. The problem is that racist organizations today are still adhering to the "White power" thing. So from both a past and present day perspective, "White only" still brings up a lot of negativity, and so, people are still extremely sensitive to it. It will take a looooong time for that to change.TabascoNatalie said:
For goodness sake could you at least do a little bit of research before making such sweeping and offensive generalisations?TabascoNatalie said:
Here is some very basic level explanations of how white privilege is still a HUGE issue in present day society (yes these sites are US based, but the UK is not that different from the US).
http://www.tolerance.org/article/racism-and-white-privilege[/URL]
<U>http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-white-privilege.htm</U>
LvMyLaxKid, there are minority ethnicity magazines available because mainstream media magazines are catered towards white people. (Oh hey, modern day white privilege example, ta-da!) pick up any mainstream magazine, fashion, fitness, general music and it is catered towards white people.
From the assortment of crap currently in my loungeroom (I have too many teenagers in my house, I swear) I can see a lot of white faces on covers, I can see articles about the best flesh coloured underwear for the upcoming summer months (guess whose flesh they are coloured to), an article about figuring out if your skin matches beige or ivory based foundation, how to figure out what colours you should be wearing this spring (our four examples feature four white girls with different hair colours, apparently girls of any other skin colour should just run around naked), a whole bunch of make-up tips for white skin. Oh, Dolly magazine (Australian teen magazine) this month has a model who they feel the need to point out is Sudanese, she's next to the token overweight girl model, who is also pointed out, in between the articles about what colour of make-up to use to cover blemishes (tip: it features a peach-ish paste) and some inane "How to make your crush like you" BS, which is unrelated to my point but my goodness what is this crap?
It's not just the teenage magazines, my tattoo magazine features a grand total of zero people of colour this month, and every month for that matter, just lots of white girls with really big boobs.
But anyway, the point is, there are ethnic minority magazines because mainstream magazines are geared towards white people, so there is no need for 'Ivory' magazine because every other magazine available may as well be called that.
When you have 70% white people in a population, then obviously the majority of your products will be suited for white people. I don't think it's "white privilege" so much as demand. For products where race doesn't matter, and demand is equal, there are often minorities featured. When is the last time you saw a white baby on the Gerber (baby food) label, or a McDonald's commercial with a white model? Everyone has to eat, after all.
As for hair and skin products, of course you are going to see racial divisions, because hair types and skin shades are inherently different among races. I find it odd that you cherry-picked the few products in which race actually matters to make your point.
As for hair and skin products, of course you are going to see racial divisions, because hair types and skin shades are inherently different among races. I find it odd that you cherry-picked the few products in which race actually matters to make your point.
I don't really want to get involved here. I just wanted to say that I find it very interesting and enlightening to see you guys discussing issues that so many claim to be "uniquely South African"...
1) why it is so offensive to have a different opinion? It was not hate speech or something
i speak from my own observation as we live in an inner city area, plus i am quite aware of various social concerns in our city.2) your first link comes down to the source of privilege being material wealth. While it is very true, race here is more a coincidence than a reason, especially in modern day.
Second link -- it is more a law of "supply and demand" and that doesnt stay still.
3) why a white kid who has very short hair would be branded a "skinhead" and be suspended from school for inappropriate hairstyle, or be attacked in the street by random strangers for being "racist"? Would you accuse someone of colour being a racist for just having short hair? Many african boys have their heads shaved.
4) now in UK there is major campaign of scaremongering going against... Eastern Europeans
especially its ok to slander Romanians and Bulgarians, well, people from Poland and Baltics as well. I'll not go much further into this particular thing. But certainly not much white privilege in here5) More about white privilege
http://www.jrf.org.uk/media-centre/white-british-boys-most-persistent-low-educational-achievers-practical-measures-could-i[/url]
Well, pretty much all advertising here is white people. Can't comment on Gerber because we don't have that brand here, and our McDonalds advertising is pretty much just white men in their 20's.akmom said:
Australia can secretly out-racist most countries. After all, a week ago we did elect a new Prime Minister whose only publicised election policy was to stop asylum seekers coming to Australia. Oh and he also has a very infamous quote about how Aboriginal Australians should pick up garbage around the streets instead of aiming towards higher employment. Disgusting little rat that man is.
I'm sure you mean "black".TabascoNatalie said:
Not all Africans are black, so the two can't be treated as synonymous. And yes, I know it's common practise, but that doesn't make it right.
I think your south african issues more parallel our issues between whites and native Americans (I think you have the same thing in Australian with Aborignial peoples) I think there's a slightly different dynamic. Those are all examples of white colonialists who came in and took over other people's land (conquered if you will) and we have a hard time coming to parity with that. People have been conquering people since the beginning of humankind and have only relatively recently been concernd about setting thing's right. it's always been much more either "You're damn right and if you don't like it win it back," or "gee, too bad, but hey that's the past." I mean you don't hear a lot about Etruscans wanting reparations from Romans...singledad said:
The dynamic between whites and blacks in America, and I suppose in the UK as well, is we stole these people from their homeland, brought them here, enslaved, and then even when freed we kept them in abject poverty for generations. So, I think I'd be pretty pissed if that had happened to my ancestors. But there's a point where you kind of have to say "History happens" and get on with life. But that's easy for me to say, I wasn't "inconvenienced by any of this." It's also easy for me to say I'm not racist if I don't have to give up anything. But again, I also can't make it right.
I agree about the double standard of inclusion vs unity, but we see that elsewhere as well. In our very own world on online communities - how many "Mommy Boards" do we see? This is the first place I've felt valued as a parent, and I try not to get too ticked when I read posts like "Hope to get to know the other moms here" or "Any mom's have ideas on..." I used to get mad, now I just ignore them. If they value my opinions so little to go out of their way to exclude me, I'm certainly not going to fight to change their minds.
Also, had a couple of discussions this week.
One was around the situation where people want the Washington Reskins to discontinue the use of the "Redskin" name. My son, really didn't undertans what all the fuss was about, "it's just a name." So, I asked him what if there was a team somewhere named the "N-word"s Maybe they were formed at a point in time that that was a pretty accepted term, would it be okay to continue using that name today? He thought that would be absolutely horrible, so perspective is an interesting component.
We also had an encounter at the grocery store with a woman obtaining items through WIC. When we were done, he asked me what that was all about and I explained it as best I could and he really had a hard time with some people getting stuff for free while we have to pay and I tried to explain that it's our way for our government, as the representative of all of us as citizens to try to help people. To be sure they can feed their children well and to help them out of poverty. The whole thing didn't strike him as fair, but he lives in a world where parents have money, not only solely for essentials but for pretty much anything they want.
One was around the situation where people want the Washington Reskins to discontinue the use of the "Redskin" name. My son, really didn't undertans what all the fuss was about, "it's just a name." So, I asked him what if there was a team somewhere named the "N-word"s Maybe they were formed at a point in time that that was a pretty accepted term, would it be okay to continue using that name today? He thought that would be absolutely horrible, so perspective is an interesting component.
We also had an encounter at the grocery store with a woman obtaining items through WIC. When we were done, he asked me what that was all about and I explained it as best I could and he really had a hard time with some people getting stuff for free while we have to pay and I tried to explain that it's our way for our government, as the representative of all of us as citizens to try to help people. To be sure they can feed their children well and to help them out of poverty. The whole thing didn't strike him as fair, but he lives in a world where parents have money, not only solely for essentials but for pretty much anything they want.
I can never keep up here, I think "Black" is a perfectly descriptive word, but seem people seem to prefer "african american" well, you'd be african american if you emigrated, and not all "black" people here are necesarily "african" So, I don't quite get the sensitivity to the term "black" here (in the US)singledad said:
I feel like no matter WHAT you use, it's going to offend SOMEone. I remember when "black" was considered bad, and African American was the only PC thing to say. I just say Black or white, and I don't mean any label in a derogatory way. But, I'm always paranoid that I'm going to offend somebody, no matter what I say.....IADad said:
Yip, me english ain't the best. lolIADad said:
Honestly, I do use improper grammar, punctuation, and other stuff often. I'm also not a very creative writer. English and history were the only 2 classes in high school that I had trouble with. It was my thinking at the time. English, well, I am English. What do I need to learn about that for? History, who cares what happened 100 years ago?
A few years after school, I regretted that and really wished I did want to learn those topics. I realised how important both were... too late.
<I></I>
I took journalism a decade ago, but here is my understanding. "Black" was the colloquial term, but because it drew attention to skin color at a time when that was a sensitive issue and we were trying to move away from it, the PC term became "African-Americans." Obviously that only applied to blacks living in America, so when we are talking about racism on a global scale, the term "African-American" makes no sense. A black person in Africa or Britain or Australia wouldn't be called an African-American, ever. But as it turns out, that is an outdated term and the proper term now (at least for journalists) is just "black." Just like the term for Caucasian ethnicity is "white." As for other races, "Asian" is the proper term, rather than "oriental" or "yellow." The original peoples of America are "Native Americans," not Indians (though the terms "American Indians" and the newer "Amerindians" in some textbooks is okay when needed for clarification). </I>
<I>
I took journalism a decade ago, but here is my understanding. "Black" was the colloquial term, but because it drew attention to skin color at a time when that was a sensitive issue and we were trying to move away from it, the PC term became "African-Americans." Obviously that only applied to blacks living in America, so when we are talking about racism on a global scale, the term "African-American" makes no sense. A black person in Africa or Britain or Australia wouldn't be called an African-American, ever. But as it turns out, that is an outdated term and the proper term now (at least for journalists) is just "black." Just like the term for Caucasian ethnicity is "white." As for other races, "Asian" is the proper term, rather than "oriental" or "yellow." The original peoples of America are "Native Americans," not Indians (though the terms "American Indians" and the newer "Amerindians" in some textbooks is okay when needed for clarification). </I>