What can you do to stop racism?

[Shwa]

Perhaps it does. Let's talk about that.

I'm just trying to have a conversation here, Shwa. The claim was made, and endorsed by c-r, that to fight racism we must "acknowledge white privilege". "Most of us are aware of how racism hurts others, but we're not aware of how it benefits us," said the website. Ok, so let's become aware. Let's look at examples and discuss them. Let's open up that "invisible knapsack" and see what's inside.

I'm not content to accept "white privilege" without defining the term first and having some concrete examples of what it actually entails. If I'm supposed to feel guilty, I want to know what it is I'm guilty of. I'm sure, for example, that neither c-r nor the folks at Racism Free Edmonton believe that I can end racism by refusing to buy "flesh tone" band-aids, for example. (If it was that easy, I'd certainly do it. I mean, I might as well buy the bright purple colored band-aids anyway, they match my skin about as well.) I'm sure they mean more than that, and I'd like to know what they're actually talking about and what I can do about it.

Talking in vague terms like "acknowledge white privilege" doesn't accomplish anything except make people angry. This campaign is a perfect example of how such language is counter productive: they've removed that claim from the website and acknowledged that "it should have been phrased more effectively".

I don't think any amount of rephrasing is going to help them unless they're prepared to discuss what they mean in concrete terms. -k

I agree that some sort of common definition is required, but wouldn't that be related to what you think the benefits are for you as a member of the dominant culture? Regardless of their phrasing, we can have the conversation based on our terms - which I think, at the end of the day, is more likely to reflect common values rather than something driven by a news media chain.

Also, if there are advantages for you as a member of that dominant culture does that necessarily mean a disadvantage for others? I am not willing to accept an automatic one-to-one relationship, however what are the advantages nowadays? For instance, is it easier for a white person to understand the newscasts done by a white person? How about teachers, mentors, bosses? Do white dolls on the shelves of toy stores confer advantages to white kids that are not available to non-white kids?

That sort of thing. What are the benefits to belonging to the dominant culture?

[CANADIEN]

First Nations is a modern term that didn't exist back then.

and guess what, I wrote the following, which you were obviously unable to read:

they didn't refer themselves as such 10000 years ago, 5000 years ago or the day before the first Vikings showed up

The term "First Nation" may be modern, but it reflects a reality that is more than just recent - these Nations are the first ones here, and anyone one who have ancestors that belonged to any of these nations has First Nation ancestors. Period.

They referred to themselves as Anishnabe, or Onkwe'hon:we meaning human beings.

Would have been news to the Haidas, or the Dene to name just two examples.

In fact the word Iroquois comes from the English bastardization of I:i ron'kwe meaing I am a man.

Really? Care to explain then how the word was used by Champlain in 1603? The word is more likely to be a French deformation of an Algonquin word.

A one wonders how you ever made it out of grade 8.

Very easily, actually.

Edited November 14, 2010 by CANADIEN

[charter.rights]

The term "First Nation" may be modern, but it reflects a reality that is more than just recent - these Nations are the first ones here, and anyone one who have ancestors that belonged to any of these nations has First Nation ancestors. Period.

First Nation refers to the "Band of Indians", and those that belong to that band. You cannot belong to the Band, unless you can connect as a direct descendant. Claiming a great great great great Grandma was a Mohawk Princess just doesn't cut it. And the point is successfully made that TrueMetis cannot call herself "First Nation" unless she is either a card-carrying member of a Band, or she has ascendants that were entered on the Band rolls at some time.

Would have been news to the Haidas, or the Dene to name just two examples.

Now you are just being obtuse.

They would have referred to them as "human or original beings" just like the Ojibway and the Mohawk would...of course in their own language.

Really? Care to explain then how the word was used by Champlain in 1603? The word is more likely to be a French deformation of an Algonquin word.

I stand corrected. In my haste I didn't recheck my statement. I am fully away how much the French bastardized not only Mohawk, but the land, the people and the countryside by their presence.

It stands however, that to the Mohawk, the Algonquin and the Ojibway peoples in Canada saw all people as human beings, making no distinction for colour of skin. In the case of Mohawk, again I have been told that the word they used was o'serroni but that refers to the fact that they built villages.

The funny thing is that Native people here were not only close allies but friends and neighbours of most the settlers in the new world. There was free trade, and co-operative living, such that food was shared and no one went hungry. With new trade goods available the settlers and the Natives created wealth that was eventually usurped by the Family Compact, which not only destroyed relationships and trust, but created the Indian class of people. They rewrote history and created laws that segregated and limited Indians in their own lands.

Edited November 14, 2010 by charter.rights

[CANADIEN]

First Nation refers to the "Band of Indians", and those that belong to that band. You cannot belong to the Band, unless you can connect as a direct descendant. Claiming a great great great great Grandma was a Mohawk Princess just doesn't cut it. And the point is successfully made that TrueMetis cannot call herself "First Nation" unless she is either a card-carrying member of a Band, or she has ascendants that were entered on the Band rolls at some time.

The only two points that are being successfully made here is that you don't even have the capacity to understand the meaning of the word male, and that you will have no hesitation in using the white man definitions when it suits you.

I stand corrected. In my haste I didn't recheck my statement. I am fully away how much the French bastardized not only Mohawk, but the land, the people and the countryside by their presence.

Your anti-white racism is becoming tedious.

[Guest TrueMetis]

It stands however, that to the Mohawk, the Algonquin and the Ojibway peoples in Canada saw all people as human beings, making no distinction for colour of skin. In the case of Mohawk, again I have been told that the word they used was o'serroni but that refers to the fact that they built villages.

The funny thing is that Native people here were not only close allies but friends and neighbours of most the settlers in the new world. There was free trade, and co-operative living, such that food was shared and no one went hungry. With new trade goods available the settlers and the Natives created wealth that was eventually usurped by the Family Compact, which not only destroyed relationships and trust, but created the Indian class of people. They rewrote history and created laws that segregated and limited Indians in their own lands.

So not only are you trying to be mighty whitey you subscribe to the noble savage identity of First Nations. This is hilarious. This of course ignores the history of fighting and slavery that exists in many First Nations tribes.

[CANADIEN]

So not only are you trying to be mighty whitey you subscribe to the noble savage identity of First Nations. This is hilarious. This of course ignores the history of fighting and slavery that exists in many First Nations tribes.

Not too loud. We do not want to alert CR to the fact that Natives are no more and no less human than anybody else on the planet.

[Sir Bandelot]

"What can you do to stop racism? Acknowledge your white privilege. "

Well for starters we could delete this thread...

[charter.rights]

So not only are you trying to be mighty whitey you subscribe to the noble savage identity of First Nations. This is hilarious. This of course ignores the history of fighting and slavery that exists in many First Nations tribes.

It doesn't exist in the context that you believe it did. There were few out and out wars in aboriginal history, especially not in any form or fashion that we engaged in war over the centuries of mass crusades, extermination of peoples and massacres. What the history actually shows is that there were conflicts, mostly related to land and resources that from time to time pushed one way or the other.

Under Mohawk law, if a Mohawk child was killed then they had a right to take your child and raise them as their own. Thus there were no kidnapping or slavery, but a simply and seemingly just way to compensation for murder. So there were many children brought into Mohawk communities that had to work alongside Mohawk children in daily activity. The same fate often happened to orphaned children of other nations who were brought up under Mohawk principles as a means to prolong peace.

Now what IS mythical is your image of the Hollywood inspired savage Indian. It never happened and the British and French were far more savage than any Indian on a comparison by comparison basis.

[Guest TrueMetis]

It doesn't exist in the context that you believe it did. There were few out and out wars in aboriginal history, especially not in any form or fashion that we engaged in war over the centuries of mass crusades, extermination of peoples and massacres. What the history actually shows is that there were conflicts, mostly related to land and resources that from time to time pushed one way or the other.

Tell that to the Haida, Mayans and Aztecs.

[Shwa]

So not only are you trying to be mighty whitey you subscribe to the noble savage identity of First Nations. This is hilarious. This of course ignores the history of fighting and slavery that exists in many First Nations tribes.

So are you subscribing to the idea that 'many' refers to the whole? Do you believe that all Chinese people are bureaucratic in nature because "many" of them speak Mandarin?

Edited November 14, 2010 by Shwa

[Shwa]

Tell that to the Haida, Mayans and Aztecs.

How about you bring some citations to the table here for some examination?

[Guest TrueMetis]

So are you subscribing to the idea that 'many' refers to the whole? Do you believe that all Chinese people are bureaucratic in nature because "many" of them speak Mandarin?

What are you talking about?

[CANADIEN]

Tell that to the Haida, Mayans and Aztecs.

Or the Six Nations, for that matter. Unless we want to manage CR's sensibilities and not mention what they did to the Wendats.

[charter.rights]

Or the Six Nations, for that matter. Unless we want to manage CR's sensibilities and not mention what they did to the Wendats.

Perhaps you can provide a pre-Family Compact historical text here for examination as well.

The reality is that the French killed off many of the Wendat by bringing in disease. That decimated populations and it wasn't until after that happened that the Six Nations "pushed" their way into Wendat territory (being the Georgian Bay region). The result was the Wendat were pushed further west into the Beaver Hunting Grounds(Fort de Tret),which Six Nations ceded to Great Britain under Nanafan 1701. And the remaining Wendat went to Quebec when the French colonists fled out of southern Ontario.

About 60 years later the Wendat "pushed" back.

Like I said it was push and pull conflicts over land and resources. Not like the deliberate attempts by colonial militaries to use biological weapons to attempt to wipe out entire nations of people.

There is no comparison.

[Shwa]

What are you talking about?

So not only are you trying to be mighty whitey you subscribe to the noble savage identity of First Nations. This is hilarious. This of course ignores the history of fighting and slavery that exists in many First Nations tribes.

It seems to me that you are critizing someone for making generalizations all the while using a generalization as your main point. Not very stealthy.

Neither is your use of "noble savage."

However, whenever you feel up to citing "the history fighting and slavery that exists in many First Nations tribes" that somehow moves it equal to or beyond the scale of the "fighting and slavery" that existed in contemporary Europe, please do. I think we can make some interesting comparisons don't you?

[CANADIEN]

Perhaps you can provide a pre-Family Compact historical text here for examination as well.

The reality is that the French killed off many of the Wendat by bringing in disease. That decimated populations and it wasn't until after that happened that the Six Nations "pushed" their way into Wendat territory (being the Georgian Bay region). The result was the Wendat were pushed further west into the Beaver Hunting Grounds(Fort de Tret),which Six Nations ceded to Great Britain under Nanafan 1701. And the remaining Wendat went to Quebec when the French colonists fled out of southern Ontario.

About 60 years later the Wendat "pushed" back.

Like I said it was push and pull conflicts over land and resources. Not like the deliberate attempts by colonial militaries to use biological weapons to attempt to wipe out entire nations of people.

There is no comparison.

Feel free to view the Six Nations as superior more noble human beings. I'll see them as... human beings.

Edited November 14, 2010 by CANADIEN

[Guest TrueMetis]

It seems to me that you are critizing someone for making generalizations all the while using a generalization as your main point. Not very stealthy.

Except I wasn't making a generalization, I didn't say all I said many.

However, whenever you feel up to citing "the history fighting and slavery that exists in many First Nations tribes" that somehow moves it equal to or beyond the scale of the "fighting and slavery" that existed in contemporary Europe, please do. I think we can make some interesting comparisons don't you?

You haven't heard of the Aztecs I take it?

[Shwa]

Except I wasn't making a generalization, I didn't say all I said many.

Really? Let's review:

CR makes some statement that you ascribe to him as being "...the noble savage identity of First Nations..."

Then you make a statement saying that his subscription to this idea of "noble savage identity of First Nations" is somehow invalidated by a "history" of violence by "many First Nations" which you do not provide by way of citation or example.

So firstly, you ascribing an opinion to someone else is a generalization. That this ascription is to a whole group of people (i.e. "First Nation") is another generalization.

Secondly, you then validate the first generalizations by countering it with some unsubstantiated comment referring to specifics which should be generaly known by everyone.

Seriously bud, get your story straight you know?

You haven't heard of the Aztecs I take it?

You haven't heard of the Spanish I take it?

[Guest TrueMetis]

So firstly, you ascribing an opinion to someone else is a generalization. That this ascription is to a whole group of people (i.e. "First Nation") is another generalization.

It opinion that there where many violent acts amongst the First Nations now? Did you skip your high school social studies classes?

Secondly, you then validate the first generalizations by countering it with some unsubstantiated comment referring to specifics which should be generaly known by everyone.

You don't need specifics to know that human beings are violent and not all First Nations are going to be allies of the Canadian Settlers.

You haven't heard of the Spanish I take it?

The Spanish fought wars to wipe out people and take captives to sacrifice by the thousands?

[Shwa]

It opinion that there where many violent acts amongst the First Nations now? Did you skip your high school social studies classes?

Are you asking my permission to generalize about me too now or are you simply unable to debate on merit and have to make things up for others to "say."

You don't need specifics to know that human beings are violent and not all First Nations are going to be allies of the Canadian Settlers.

Spoken like someone who can't back up their story with any sort of objective fact.

The Spanish fought wars to wipe out people and take captives to sacrifice by the thousands?

So are you admitting you don't actually know the Spanish?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Are you asking my permission to generalize about me too now or are you simply unable to debate on merit and have to make things up for others to "say."

Are you sure you know what a generalization is?

Spoken like someone who can't back up their story with any sort of objective fact.

Spoken like someone without a real understanding of human nature.

So are you admitting you don't actually know the Spanish?

I know that ones that conquered looking for gold, but not the genocidal ones you seem to be talking about.

[kimmy]

That sort of thing. What are the benefits to belonging to the dominant culture?

"Culture" is not the claim being made by c-r or the academics behind Racism Free Edmonton. You don't get "white privilege" from belonging to the dominant culture, you get white privilege by being white.

If the claim were being made that belonging to the dominant culture provides you with many advantages in our society, I would be 100% behind it, by the way. But that's not the claim being made by c-r. The claim being made is that being white in itself confers privileges and advantages, and that we must acknowledge them if we are to end racism.

Whether you're a 10th generation Canadian of English descent, or whether you just got off the plane from Warsaw, you're enjoying white privilege, according to this theory. Let's focus on the claim being made rather than being distracted by culture.

I agree that some sort of common definition is required, but wouldn't that be related to what you think the benefits are for you as a member of the dominant culture? Regardless of their phrasing, we can have the conversation based on our terms - which I think, at the end of the day, is more likely to reflect common values rather than something driven by a news media chain.

This wasn't driven by a news media chain. It was a government initiative, guided by a coalition of academics and anti-racism activists.

Also, if there are advantages for you as a member of that dominant culture does that necessarily mean a disadvantage for others? I am not willing to accept an automatic one-to-one relationship, however what are the advantages nowadays? For instance, is it easier for a white person to understand the newscasts done by a white person? How about teachers, mentors, bosses? Do white dolls on the shelves of toy stores confer advantages to white kids that are not available to non-white kids?

I'm certainly curious as to how I, as a white person, benefit from racism. It seems like a highly contentious claim and I'd expect that there should be an onus on those making a claim like that to support it.

You've offered some ideas.

Newscasters, teachers, mentors... I can't see a reason why the skin color of the newscaster might make a difference (barring a language or cultural barrier, but we are discussing race, not culture.) Could there be some psychological effect that makes people inherently less interested in a message that comes from somebody with a different skin tone? I certainly don't feel less informed if I watch Ian Hanomansing...

Do white dolls confer an advantage to white kids? It seems to me there's been decades of debate over whether those dolls are actually good for white kids at all. Leaving that aside, I have to point out that Barbie has a much more diverse group of friends nowadays. Toys and video games and TV shows and comic books have lots of non-white characters now.

I guess the other thing I'm baffled about is what is actually being asked of me here. I'm supposed to "acknowledge my white privilege" to stop racism. Ok, so what am I actually supposed to do? Go around thinking "that cashier was probably only friendly to me because we're both white" or "I probably only got my job because the boss wanted to hire a white person"? Surely that's not going to end racism, although it might end my self esteem after a while. Is stronger action being asked? Should I renounce white privilege by being rude to other white people, to guarantee that they're disinclined to have a favorable preconception of me? I mean, what are we actually talking about here anyway?

-k

[Shwa]

Are you sure you know what a generalization is?

I sure do! I easily spotted it with your postings recently. Generalizing of the worse kind; you are not even subtle about it either, I mean, without outright admitting to it.

Spoken like someone without a real understanding of human nature.

Where are your citations son? Am I supposed to take your word for it? If that were the case, then show me your credentials other than the obfuscating backtracking you are attempting here.

I know that ones that conquered looking for gold, but not the genocidal ones you seem to be talking about.

You say that you "know about the ones" but are proving yourself completely incapable of provding any citation or source material. Do you know that the Chinese are inherently bureaucratic because many of them speak Mandarin too?

[Guest TrueMetis]

I sure do! I easily spotted it with your postings recently. Generalizing of the worse kind; you are not even subtle about it either, I mean, without outright admitting to it.

Where are your citations son? Am I supposed to take your word for it? If that were the case, then show me your credentials other than the obfuscating backtracking you are attempting here.

You say that you "know about the ones" but are proving yourself completely incapable of provding any citation or source material. Do you know that the Chinese are inherently bureaucratic because many of them speak Mandarin too?

Why do I have the feeling that if I had said many White people have a history of fighting and slavery you wouldn't have said a damn thing?

Edited November 14, 2010 by TrueMetis

[charter.rights]

Where are your citations son? Am I supposed to take your word for it? If that were the case, then show me your credentials other than the obfuscating backtracking you are attempting here.

She has no credentials. Even her name is fake. You'll be waiting until the sun no longer shines before that one can prove anything....

An example of where TrueMetis is really coming from:

100 peek(36879)

110 poke 36879, 0

120 gosub 100