White Americans have a lot to atone for in their violent racist oppression of blacks

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Well, that was confusing ...
Sorry, after re-reading my comment, it did come out wrong. What I was trying to say, is that you are responsible for your actions. Just because Blacks use derogatory terms(taught to them by their slave masters), does NOT excuse you for using them as well. So saying, "well they use these terms among themselves..", or "..well they are commonly used terms in the US..", does not EXCLUDE the fact that they are still derogatory and racist terms.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Sorry, after re-reading my comment, it did come out wrong. What I was trying to say, is that you are responsible for your actions. Just because Blacks use derogatory terms(taught to them by their slave masters), does NOT excuse you for using them as well. So saying, "well they use these terms among themselves..", or "..well they are commonly used terms in the US..", does not EXCLUDE the fact that they are still derogatory and racist terms.
Okay. I understand that certain terms are derogatory. Others aren't, however. Among those are the ones that people of that race commonly use and accept in civil conversation.

Black, African American, People of Color, or Black Americans are all terms commonly used in civil discourse.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
I agree that sex with children is illegal, as well as child pornography, etc. It is not protected under the Constitution, nor should it be.

As unpopular as it would be, if pedophiles wanted to use speech or even a public demonstration for the sole purpose of lobbying to repeal the laws against having sex with children and child pornography, that would be protected speech. You see the distinction?
Seth, what argument would pedophiacs use to legalize child pornography, sex with under-aged kids, or even in possession underaged depictions? I think it would start with, "This is our Constitutionally protected right to express our love for children.". Or maybe, "children have the right to be loved..".

So it is NOT about their end goal. It is totally about their message. And, any speech/message that is integral to illegal conduct, or questions the obscenity and child pornography laws, are by their nature, pretty much limited.

Maybe you could think of a speech/message, that would NOT encourage someone to think about committing this crime? Can you think of an argument to repeal the laws against rape, murder, or child abuse? I can't either. Because any argument could only claim that these unlawful acts, should become lawful.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Okay. I understand that certain terms are derogatory. Others aren't, however. Among those are the ones that people of that race commonly use and accept in civil conversation.

Black, African American, People of Color, or Black Americans are all terms commonly used in civil discourse.

Seth, you are again missing the point. The issue here is NOT about whether or not these derogatory racial terms are commonly used in the US. The issue here is that they should NOT be used, period. You are saying that because these are terms are being used by everyone(including Black Americans), that these terms should become a no biggy. This is wrong, and only exacerbates the the racial divide. These terms are still derogatory, even when used among Black Americans.

Think about it. When you see a Black American youth in the store, do you see him differently than a White American youth in the store? Based only on what you have said in the past, you only see a potential murderer, a criminal, a non-intelect, a product of a single parent home, and certainly NOT to be trusted. Anything other than just a youth.

Look Seth, even animals will discriminate against the odd sheep in the species. This is genetically hardwired by evolution. It allows different species to protect their own species. So bigotry and racism is only an evolutionary outgrowth. Rationally, no one can choose their original parents, and therefore their race. But nature is not always rational. This is why we have laws.

The argument is NOT about racism, it is about equality. Specifically, equal treatment under the law. Black Americans don't care if you don't like them. But when they are stopped and searched 5 times more often than Whites, or arrested 8 times more than Whites for the same crime, then they are concerned. But when Black Americans are discriminated in housing and employment opportunities, financial and educational opportunities, then they are forced to do whatever it takes to survive, and support their families. For many Black Americans, their feeling of being excluded from society, is justified and real.

My point again, you can be a racists all you want. But you must treat all people equally, exactly the same way you would want to be treated, BY LAW. But as long as those laws are created, controlled, and implemented by White Americans, White privilege and White pride, will always be above the law. Somewhere between the intent, and the spirit of the law.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Well, that was confusing ...
I now see what you you were saying. No Seth, let me repeat. If it is necessary for you to label people, then you can call people by their nationality(country of origin), or by their race(African), to be less offensive. Therefore, calling your daughter in law, your "black" daughter in law, is describing her only as a color. If he had of said African or Black American daughter in law( race and nationality), then this would be less offensive in making the point.

There is a big difference in "black" daughter in law, and Black American daughter in law. So I don't see any confusion here. So when you say that we are all Americans, then include that as well.
 

Texan

Active member
I now see what you you were saying. No Seth, let me repeat. If it is necessary for you to label people, then you can call people by their nationality(country of origin), or by their race(African), to be less offensive. Therefore, calling your daughter in law, your "black" daughter in law, is describing her only as a color. If he had of said African or Black American daughter in law( race and nationality), then this would be less offensive in making the point.

There is a big difference in "black" daughter in law, and Black American daughter in law. So I don't see any confusion here. So when you say that we are all Americans, then include that as well.
We are a different culture and find different things offensive. That's one of the reasons I'm on a couple of Australian forums. I'm curious how people from other countries view the world. In America, vulgar language is not as acceptable. Don't use the word "cunt" in front of women here. It won't go over well.

Over the decades, black people have changed their opinion on what they are called. Nigger to negro to black to afro-American to African American to people of color. The problem is really that their difference is pointed out and they keep themselves isolated from American culture. I don't know that you can blame them or the rest of us, but I'm sure there is enough blame to go around to people of all races. The same goes for women.
 
Last edited:

Squire

Active member
We are a different culture and find different things offensive. That's one of the reasons I'm on a couple of Australian forums. I'm curious how people from other countries view the world. In America, vulgar language is not as acceptable. Don't use the word "cunt" in front of women here. It won't go over well.

Over the decades, black people have changed their opinion on what they are called. Nigger to negro to black to afro-American to African American to people of color. The problem is really that their difference is pointed out and they keep themselves isolated from American culture. I don't know that you can blame them or the rest of us, but I'm sure there is enough blame to go around to people of all races. The same goes for women.
Blame it on the Bossanova?
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Seth, what argument would pedophiacs use to legalize child pornography, sex with under-aged kids, or even in possession underaged depictions? I think it would start with, "This is our Constitutionally protected right to express our love for children.". Or maybe, "children have the right to be loved..".

So it is NOT about their end goal. It is totally about their message. And, any speech/message that is integral to illegal conduct, or questions the obscenity and child pornography laws, are by their nature, pretty much limited.

Maybe you could think of a speech/message, that would NOT encourage someone to think about committing this crime? Can you think of an argument to repeal the laws against rape, murder, or child abuse? I can't either. Because any argument could only claim that these unlawful acts, should become lawful.
Shell, LISTEN!

The point I was discussing with mothra was NOT a defense of pedophilia. It was STRICTLY the 1st Amendment.

In the U.S. you may lobby for or against any existing or proposed law.

We can both agree 100% that whatever rationale they used would not sway lawmakers to their side. Nevertheless, the ONLY point is that the 1A would allow the discussion and debate over the law itself.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
I now see what you you were saying. No Seth, let me repeat. If it is necessary for you to label people, then you can call people by their nationality(country of origin), or by their race(African), to be less offensive. Therefore, calling your daughter in law, your "black" daughter in law, is describing her only as a color. If he had of said African or Black American daughter in law( race and nationality), then this would be less offensive in making the point.

There is a big difference in "black" daughter in law, and Black American daughter in law. So I don't see any confusion here. So when you say that we are all Americans, then include that as well.
Texan used a term that is acceptable in civil discourse in this country.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
We are a different culture and find different things offensive. That's one of the reasons I'm on a couple of Australian forums. I'm curious how people from other countries view the world. In America, vulgar language is not as acceptable. Don't use the word "cunt" in front of women here. It won't go over well.
With all due respect Texan, it is my opinion that if necessary, people should be addressed in a way that describes them as a race(original species), or as a nationality(country of birth). This is not only politically and socially correct, but it is also less offensive. So, "African American" man or woman would be the most politically correct label. This would be the same for "Asian American", "Latin American", "Native Americans", etc. What do you think the Aboriginals here would like to be called? "First Nation People", "Aboriginal Australians", or Black Abbo's"? This is really a no-brainer. But, calling a person by their name is still the least offensive label. The most beautiful sound any person can hear, is the sound of his/her own name.

Vulgar language is not acceptable in any culture. Calling a person a "cunt" here is still vulgar. Whether it's in front of women or not. Also, calling someone a "cunt", "prick", or an "asshold", is NOT race-specific right? But calling someone by a color IS race-specific. You would never say, "Tell that black guy to come in.". Or, "My wife looks after a lot of black babies.". If I were Black I would certainly find this offensive. People are much more than just a color, and should NOT be addressed as such(red, yellow, black, white, or brown). It IS demeaning, condescending, and disrespectful.

The concept of the 5 races itself, is only a social construct, and is biologically meaningless. 99.5% of all our genes are the same. There are more variations within races, than there are between races. All races are the genetic mutational variance of the original African gene. ALL OTHER RACES!!

Over the decades, black people have changed their opinion on what they are called. Nigger to negro to black to afro-American to African American to people of color. The problem is really that their difference is pointed out and they keep themselves isolated from American culture. I don't know that you can blame them or the rest of us, but I'm sure there is enough blame to go around to people of all races. The same goes for women.
The "n" word, Negro, Black, were the names(labels) that the slave-owners gave to their slaves. POC is only a political name, referring to ALL non-Whites. African American, or Black American are the least offensive labels. And, how Black Americans refer to themselves is irrelevant. It is how society refers to them that matters. What words YOU and your family use to describe each other, or the names Blacks use among other Blacks, may all be acceptable amongst yourselves. But this doesn't mean that these labels are NOT derogatory, or that these terms should be universally acceptable in society.

What bothers me is when people say that racism and discrimination of minorities, is no longer prevalent in America. Or, the old, "It's not perfect yet..". Or, the cause of racism, is that we keep talking about it. But, we still keep hearing the same stories of Black mother's daughter being denied entry to certain prep schools, and the White mother's daughter who entered after her, being granted entry. These same scenarios are becoming more common in sports, employment interviews, loan interviews, housing interviews, etc. So, racism and discrimination still exist and is growing. It's just not being practiced as openly.
 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
The point I was discussing with mothra was NOT a defense of pedophilia. It was STRICTLY the 1st Amendment.
I never said you were defending Pedophilia!! And, I certainly would never believe you would. But this has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. Specifically the right of free speech and expression. Pedophilia is specifically NOT protected as a right(Obscenity clause, Child Ponography clause, and Speech Integral to Illegal Conduct clause). So any RALLY or SPEECH by pedophiliacs would not be protected speech. Or, protected by the 1st Amendment.

In the U.S. you may lobby for or against any existing or proposed law.
This is true. However, there are NO PEDIPHILIAC LOBBY GROUPS IN THE US. There use to be four. But, they were all defunct back in the 80's. Over 40 years ago. One of their slogans was, "Sex before eight, or it's too late". They also were NOT protected by the 1st Amendment.

We can both agree 100% that whatever rationale they used would not sway lawmakers to their side. Nevertheless, the ONLY point is that the 1A would allow the discussion and debate over the law itself.
We can agree that any PUBLIC speeches, messages, or rationales that they could use, would be illegal and not be protected by the constitution. This could lead to being fined and/or arrested. In either case, no council in the country would ever give them a permit to rally. for fear of being sued. The examples I gave, were lobbyists for repealing the laws for murder, rape, or kidnapping. They also don't exist.

Your point was that you would defend the right of people to freely express themselves, to the death. Because of the 1st amendment. You used pediphilia as an example. Since there are no pediphiliac rallies or lobby groups, this would never happen. So use another example that is at least legal and possible. Like White supremacist rallies. Or, racial hate group rallies.

I also know a lot about the racist Westboro Baptist Church. Possibly, the most obnoxious and rabid hate group in America. I suspect it was the burning of the flag upside down, and the "thank God for dead soldiers", that put this church under the White radar.

Texan used a term that is acceptable in civil discourse in this country.
Although Taxan ca clearly speak for himself, it is irrelevant if terms are acceptable, and used in common/civil discourse. That does NOT make the specific terms I've mentioned less offensive or derogatory. And, I have explained why, which you seem to never question. Other than to keep changing the goal posts.
 
Last edited:

Texan

Active member
I don't go around labeling people. I only did it here because this is a thread about race and it was relevant to the discussion. And I'm one of the last here to attack people and call names, especially within my family.
 

Squire

Active member
I don't go around labeling people. I only did it here because this is a thread about race and it was relevant to the discussion. And I'm one of the last here to attack people and call names, especially within my family.
That is a confession that you "attack people and call names, especially within my family".
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
The only thing that Texan said that i had a problem with was the term "mixed race" to describe his granddaughter. I've since read an excellent article posted by Seth that explains and justifies why many people identify with that term and have reclaimed it as they feel it best represents them.

Who am i to argue? I have learned. I have thanked Seth and apologised to Texan.

I get we all get idealistic about this. god knows i do. It's hard to keep up with how people as a whole wish to identify when there are so many conflicting opinions, and new voices coming into the discussion on a daily basis. Each adding arguments ranging from the credible and relatable to the inflammatory and hysterical.

For my two cents, i think both Texan and Seth wish to cause no offence and intend no offence. There's a translation wormhole i struggle with with both of them, and their categorical defence of a constitution past it's use by date baffles me, but i only think that is to both of their credits exposing themselves here, where they know they meet resistance.

I would like to see that resistance fair and even-handed. I'm seeing a little less of that than i'd like.

There are dyed in the wool, bona fide racists on the internet. Ozpol is sick with them. They're not here though. Not since that lunatic, whatever his name was, was banned.

I'm not saying there is no institutionalised racism in the US. I strongly believe there is ... and Seth and Texan probably disagree with me on that ... but there is institutionalised racism in this country too. And it's hard, as a person raised with white privilege, not to aggravate that at times. Even with the best of intentions. Equally, it's hard to recognise the signs of it within yourself, even when vigilant. And far too few of us are prepared to be vigilant.

And then there are the aggravated masses who are so tired of trying and failing to be politically correct, they give up entirely and backlash. And the even greater number who backlash without even trying.

And the hypersensitive. There's a show on ABC i watch with my son called "Superwog". It's fucking hilarious. But my son refuses to name it because it contains a slur. Whilst i get where he's coming from, i think he's being hypersensitive. But (excuse me Seth and Texan, you won't get theses references) i lived through the great Wog reclamation of the late '80s, early '90s. My son is born into a new world and bless him, he has big ideas.

I think a couple of posters or so are being hypersensitive in this thread, for what it's worth.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
The only thing that Texan said that i had a problem with was the term "mixed race" to describe his granddaughter. I've since read an excellent article posted by Seth that explains and justifies why many people identify with that term and have reclaimed it as they feel it best represents them.

Who am i to argue? I have learned. I have thanked Seth and apologised to Texan.

I get we all get idealistic about this. god knows i do. It's hard to keep up with how people as a whole wish to identify when there are so many conflicting opinions, and new voices coming into the discussion on a daily basis. Each adding arguments ranging from the credible and relatable to the inflammatory and hysterical.

For my two cents, i think both Texan and Seth wish to cause no offence and intend no offence. There's a translation wormhole i struggle with with both of them, and their categorical defence of a constitution past it's use by date baffles me, but i only think that is to both of their credits exposing themselves here, where they know they meet resistance.

I would like to see that resistance fair and even-handed. I'm seeing a little less of that than i'd like.

There are dyed in the wool, bona fide racists on the internet. Ozpol is sick with them. They're not here though. Not since that lunatic, whatever his name was, was banned.

I'm not saying there is no institutionalised racism in the US. I strongly believe there is ... and Seth and Texan probably disagree with me on that ... but there is institutionalised racism in this country too. And it's hard, as a person raised with white privilege, not to aggravate that at times. Even with the best of intentions. Equally, it's hard to recognise the signs of it within yourself, even when vigilant. And far too few of us are prepared to be vigilant.

And then there are the aggravated masses who are so tired of trying and failing to be politically correct, they give up entirely and backlash. And the even greater number who backlash without even trying.

And the hypersensitive. There's a show on ABC i watch with my son called "Superwog". It's fucking hilarious. But my son refuses to name it because it contains a slur. Whilst i get where he's coming from, i think he's being hypersensitive. But (excuse me Seth and Texan, you won't get theses references) i lived through the great Wog reclamation of the late '80s, early '90s. My son is born into a new world and bless him, he has big ideas.

I think a couple of posters or so are being hypersensitive in this thread, for what it's worth.

I think your comments were very well said, and from the heart. I have nothing but respect for both Seth and Texan. Knuckle-dragging, ignorant racial bigots, could never hold a decent conversation, without becoming defensive, irrational, or offensive. I have never doubted either of their core racial beliefs, or would ever consider either a racists or a bigot. But, I have heard these same racial, and politically correct clichés all before. I know, that what is sometimes said in public, is not always what is said in private. So, I am skeptical, whenever I hear these comments.

When people use stereotypes, colors, socially accepted myths, or derogatory labels to describe POC, they become part of the problem. Through their actions, or their inactions. Since their beliefs may be out of ignorance, deliberate, or just them being true to their nature, I must ask questions to find out.

I remember when I first came to Australia. I was walking with a friend of mine(African American) near the Bondi pub. We were approached by an Australian couple, who called my friend, "Bill Cosby". No need to overthink this. At another time, while crossing the road to the beach, my friend was called a "boong". Of course being an American, he had no idea what it meant. This is why COLOR is an issue. It will always raise unconscious assumptions when used.

Being born and raised in America, I have seen the cruelty of racial bigotry, and have always experienced White Privilege, status, and opportunities. We are NOT simply talking about active discrimination, exclusion, and open legal(Jim Crow) bigotry by most White Americans. We are talking about the kidnapping of Black Africans from their homeland. The forcing of Blacks onto ships where many died(or committed suicide) along the way. The fate of of becoming either an owned slave, or an indentured servant in a foreign land. An entire race being forced to do ANYTHING their masters tell them. But for those with some pride or identity left who chose not to become either, the atrocities committed against them truly symbolized, the worst that man could ever do to his fellow man. And, because it was a long swim back to Africa, nowhere to hide, no laws to be protect by, and no one to be trusted, they were truly fucked in a strange land.

Hypersensitive? Tell that to the surviving, or descendents of Black Americans who were lynched, arrested, imprisoned, murdered, terrorized, beatened, discriminated, ridiculed, demonized, denigrated, and systematically excluded from any place in society. We are talking about a complete rape of the minds of an entire race. It will take generations for this damage to be repaired. And, reparations would only a start.

Studies have consistently shown on Implicit Association Tests, for White and Black Children(7-11 yo), that it is White Children who exhibit implicit intergroup bias. And, that Black children exhibited NO implicit intergroup bias. So, Despite the decline of explicit expressed prejudices over the last several decades, White Americans continue to hold negative intergroup attitudes, only at a less conscious implicit level.


Do you have any idea of how many Black slaves committed suicides on slave ships, or on land?


Because of what people call acceptable behavior among themselves, or terms that they use among themselves, does not mean, that the terms and behavior are acceptable in general society. It is still stigmatizing to refer to person as a color(black daughter in law), or the children of mixed race relationships, as "mixed race" children. IMHO. I know that Seth or Texan would never use color to describe POC.

My other question was because both felt no responsibility for any past racial injustices, and claimed that these injustices were NOT as prevalent today. But this belief only begs the question why? So, what has either done, or evidenced, to support their beliefs? What had either done to fight against racist rhetoric, or to slow the growth of hate groups in America? When they see obvious racial discrimination occurring, what do they do about it? Seth says nothing, just ignore it.

I also looked at the article. I agree with her first comment. "Mixed, I now understand, is an insult. Things are mixed, not people.". It doesn't matter if "mixed" is derogatory or a slur. It is still a label that doesn't represent race or nationality. Technically, the child's race is determined by his/her DOMINANT gene. In the case of an African mixed relationship, the child will always be African or Black(not the color). Because Black will always be the dominate gene. The child's nationality is always determined by his/her place of birth, or his/her parents place of birth(American children born on military bases). But, using the term "mixed" is only a pejorative label, that is neither genetically, nationalistically, or racially correct. Therefore, it should NOT be used as being politically correct in society. IMHO.

There are only 3% of the people in Australia, who identify themselves as Aboriginal. So institutionalized racism and discrimination could easily go unnoticed before being discovered. But, I totally agree. Do you really think the use of "mixed" among the Aboriginal community, would mean something positive?

Does anyone remember the old movie "watermelon man", with Godfrey Cambridge?
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
Australia is probably more racist than the USA. Australia's geriatric crackers are the worst.
I'd accept that here. I can't tell you the number of times I've been called a wog. Even by immigrants who were born overseas like Soren :stoopid
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
Shell, two things:

Never make the mistake that sincere racists and cultural and racial supremacists are all stupid. The more dangerous ones are a far cry from that.

Secondly, hypersensitive, yes. To feel the need to give us all a summary of slavery, which we are all familiar with thanks very much, because someone uses nomenclature you don't approve of? Come on now.

Let me hasten to add that clearly you are a thoughtful kinda guy. The world needs more like you. I personally am grateful that you are out there. But dude, this kind of thing is turning people off in droves. The way to open thoughtful recourse is to not knee-jerk into slavery when someone uses the incorrect pronoun. We all know there are problematic uses of such pronouns. Furthermore, as this thread has demonstrated, we are not all in agreement about what is offensive and what is not. Or was and is no longer. These wheels turn fast.

So, often lost me, listens and learns ... and tries not offend. If i fail to not offend, i can only hope justification of my intent pardons me. I also hope i learn. Furthermore, i hope someone doesn't feel the need to bring up slavery to rub my nose in it.
 
Top