What can you do to stop racism?

[CANADIEN]

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?

Forget about it. You committed the cardinal thing of thinking that Natives and their ancestors are just plain human beings like anyone else.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Forget about it. You committed the cardinal thing of thinking that Natives and their ancestors are just plain human beings like anyone else.

Yes I should just admit that they were supermen, and somehow white people contaminated them and turned them into what we see today.

[Shwa]

"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

.

So are you saying that a group of people that share physical features do not devise cultural similarities especially in proximate regions like, say, Europe? In the case of the article I would say that they are referring to a 'culture of privledge' that is associated to their skin colour. I know that the words 'culture' and 'race' are not completely synonymous, but they so share links.

So a Polish immigrant coming off the plane might have an immediate affinity with the dominant racial group through the shared understanding of any shared cultural traits they might possess, such as white dolls, white newscasters or the prevalence of white people hawking goods on TV.

I am not about to admit that this affinity is racist in any shape or form, it is just an affinity which may ease the transition of integration into a society of like individuals.

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

Ultimatley yes, you are correct here. However there are plenty of government initiatives, guided by academic coalitions and special interest activists we don't hear about or hear about on a large scale. It seems to me this specific claim of white privledge hasn't gained major traction anywhere else in the media, other that the usual blah we hear about. I could be wrong since I haven't really bothered to follow it on a national scale. I am sure this concept has been out in the world for quite sometime though.

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.

So, related to my point above, sure it should be the onus of the claiments to support it, which they have attempted to do. Even if we refute what they have to say, there still leaves the question of what possible benefits could there be, realized from our perspective. If there are any.

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...

Yeah, and there's the trap I think. I don't feel less informed when I watch Ian Hanomansing or any of the newscasters or reporters of colour on CityTV or Cable Pulse here in Toronto. But is that a reasonable expectation of someone of colour, that is, not not feel less informed or belong less to the culture producing those things? I would think the reasonable way to find out is to ask them.

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.

They do and in many cases, lots of lead characters or heroes are non-white nowadays even if those instances sometimes appear to be the exceptions to the rule.

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?

I am not sure that an acknowledgement of "white privledge" is supposed to be anything more than an acknowledgement of an awareness that birds of a feather can, and often do, flock together and this might be detrimental to others in some limited cases. I suppose the other side of it is to recognize racism when you see it and, if possible, enter into the dialogue necessary to change it.

Other than that, I dunno.

[Shwa]

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?

I am not sure why you would have that feeling? Are you cynical or superior by nature or was it taught to you?

[CANADIEN]

Yes I should just admit that they were supermen, and somehow white people contaminated them and turned them into what we see today.

Mind you, responsibility for the current conditions of the First nations lays primarilly at the foot of the Government and those that endorsed its policies. Things could have hardly been worse without that.

[Shwa]

Forget about it. You committed the cardinal thing of thinking that Natives and their ancestors are just plain human beings like anyone else.

Bullshit. And what's worse, is that the term 'noble savage' has a distinct European etymology that neither denies nor exonerates a group of people from human failings such a war, slavery or violence, but is used a contrasting device for European political philosophy. Seriously Canadien, try and stay awake will you?

[CANADIEN]

Bullshit. And what's worse, is that the term 'noble savage' has a distinct European etymology that neither denies nor exonerates a group of people from human failings such a war, slavery or violence, but is used a contrasting device for European political philosophy. Seriously Canadien, try and stay awake will you?

Want me to stay awake? Then avoid the boring litany of "how dare yous" because someone had the audacity to claim that pre-Contact First Nations were not exempt from human failings.

Edited November 14, 2010 by CANADIEN

[M.Dancer]

Even her name is fake.

Mr. And Mrs. Right are very proud of their Daughter, Charter.

[Shwa]

Want me to stay awake? Then avoid the boring litany of "how dare yous" because someone had the audacity to claim that pre-Contact First Nations were not exempt from human failings.

No, I am not talking about boring, I am talking about lazy. Now if all you see is a "boring litany of 'how dare yous'" and that is the best your mind can fathom, then really, laziness is the least of your problems IMO.

But then again, I suppose there is something to be said for those who would apply their terminology to another group of people and expect those people to readily agree with the term and it's application, whether it is even applied correctly or not. That takes a certain level of privledge don't you think? Or does it take a certain level of audacity also?

[kimmy]

So are you saying that a group of people that share physical features do not devise cultural similarities especially in proximate regions like, say, Europe?

Actually, I'd kind of say the opposite... when groups of people share the same physical features, they devise otther ways to differentiate their group from others. When people can't create divisions along racial lines, they quickly create other means of excluding others. Nobles vs peasants, Catholics vs Protestants, Hutus vs Tutsis, Anglos vs Francos, Habs fans vs Leafs fans, jocks vs nerds...

In the case of the article I would say that they are referring to a 'culture of privledge' that is associated to their skin colour. I know that the words 'culture' and 'race' are not completely synonymous, but they so share links.

Your message referred to the privileges that come from "belonging to the dominant culture." I wanted to nip that in the bud, because that's not what c-r and the people behind this campaign were attempting to describe when they used the term "white privilege".

So a Polish immigrant coming off the plane might have an immediate affinity with the dominant racial group through the shared understanding of any shared cultural traits they might possess, such as white dolls, white newscasters or the prevalence of white people hawking goods on TV.

I am not about to admit that this affinity is racist in any shape or form, it is just an affinity which may ease the transition of integration into a society of like individuals.

I identify myself as being similar to that woman on the TV, so I get the message that perhaps I should own a Swiffer as well? I suppose there could be something to that. What if we're not talking about immigrants, though? If we divorce this from the question of culture, does it still make sense? If a non-white person who has grown up in this country sees a white woman on the TV with a Swiffer, does she have a sense that she too should own a Swiffer, or does she get a sense that it's for white people? (if a man sees the same commercial, does he get the idea that a Swiffer is for women?)

Ultimatley yes, you are correct here. However there are plenty of government initiatives, guided by academic coalitions and special interest activists we don't hear about or hear about on a large scale. It seems to me this specific claim of white privledge hasn't gained major traction anywhere else in the media, other that the usual blah we hear about. I could be wrong since I haven't really bothered to follow it on a national scale. I am sure this concept has been out in the world for quite sometime though.

The media may have picked up on this story, but we're trying to discuss the claims made by the academics themselves, not the media coverage of it.

So, related to my point above, sure it should be the onus of the claiments to support it, which they have attempted to do. Even if we refute what they have to say, there still leaves the question of what possible benefits could there be, realized from our perspective. If there are any.

Well, Racism Free Edmonton declined the opportunity to discuss the claim and just withdrew it from their website (albeit with the assurance that it wasn't wrong, just poorly explained.) Charter.whut provided me with a link some brochure from the University of North Carolina, which proved to be pretty useless, and went on the rant about mortgages on reservations, which I think we can all agree was badly off the mark, along with assurances that there are far too many examples to list and that if you can't see them you're clearly blind. You're here gamely playing devil's advocate, but I get the sense that you're as unsure about the subject as I am.

So, it's clear how racism would adversely affect somebody who isn't white. The question of how racism would benefit somebody who is white is a lot trickier, though.

You've offered the premise that perhaps a white person is able to more readily relate to information presented by another white person. I'm skeptical (Mr Hanomansing, as we discussed earlier) but I don't dismiss the idea out of hand.

The obvious idea, of course, is that perhaps a white person is more likely to be viewed favorably by other white people, and that this could translate into benefit of some sort, such as better odds at getting a job, as you suggest...

I am not sure that an acknowledgement of "white privledge" is supposed to be anything more than an acknowledgement of an awareness that birds of a feather can, and often do, flock together and this might be detrimental to others in some limited cases.

And I kind of disagree that we "flock together". As I mentioned earlier, I think we tend to find ways to separate ourselves, not flock together.

In another thread earlier in the year, ShakeyHands made an interesting comment regarding a young woman who was speculated to be a convert to Islam. Shakey's suggested that maybe she did it to fit in. His comment seems counterintuitive, but I think it made a lot of sense.

You don't get a sense of belonging from, or feel kinship to a group that might be 70% to 90% of the populace depending where you live. People in search of belonging form much more exclusive associations. Perhaps it would be different for members of minority groups whose race itself gives them a common experience to share, but I feel no sense of kinship to random white people I encounter in day to day life. I have no reason to believe any of them feel any kinship to me either, no reason to assume they'd do me any favors for any reason and certainly not because we share a similar pigmentation with 90% of the people in this town.

If you're meeting someone of a different race for the first time, then race may be a significant factor in forming the preconceptions you have about that person.

If you're meeting someone of the same race for the first time, your brain will be looking at lots of other factors in forming a preconception about that person, and I think in a lot of cases that preconception might actually be more negative than if it were based on race.

-k

[CANADIEN]

No, I am not talking about boring, I am talking about lazy. Now if all you see is a "boring litany of 'how dare yous'" and that is the best your mind can fathom, then really, (...)

it's because one cannot even hint at the fact pre-contact Natives were, after all, human beings without you showing outrage. Thanks for proving it right here.

[charter.rights]

it's because one cannot even hint at the fact pre-contact Natives were, after all, human beings without you showing outrage. Thanks for proving it right here.

I'm still waiting for you to produce a pre-Family Compact references that native people were like us war mongering, inhuman imperialists, to replace your opinion with real "facts". Otherwise all you are doing is engaging in transference.

Edited November 15, 2010 by charter.rights

[Guest TrueMetis]

I'm still waiting for you to produce a pre-Family Compact references that native people were like us war mongering, inhuman imperialists, to replace your opinion with real "facts". Otherwise all you are doing is engaging in transference.

Again have you never heard of the Haida, Aztecs and Mayans?

[charter.rights]

Again have you never heard of the Haida, Aztecs and Mayans?

Have you ever read a book on them that wasn't written by a biased colonial interest?

It is clear that books written from an imperial or colonial perspective are tainted with transference.

Edited November 15, 2010 by charter.rights

[Guest TrueMetis]

Have you ever read a book on them that wasn't written by a biased colonial interest?

It is clear that books written from an imperial or colonial perspective are tainted with transference.

So your argument is basically the white man lied? Good luck with that.

[charter.rights]

So your argument is basically the white man lied? Good luck with that.

That is why it is important to reference pre-Family Compact texts. The Family Compact movement deliberately tried to rewrite history to suit their own agenda.

[Guest TrueMetis]

That is why it is important to reference pre-Family Compact texts. The Family Compact movement deliberately tried to rewrite history to suit their own agenda.

The only one trying to re-write history here is you. The Haida, Aztecs, and Mayans where slavers and conquers just accept it.

[charter.rights]

The only one trying to re-write history here is you. The Haida, Aztecs, and Mayans where slavers and conquers just accept it.

Try again sophomore. You would have to read a book before you really understand how transference has been used to apply our own violent interpretations of cultural mysteries.

[M.Dancer]

I'm still waiting for you to produce a pre-Family Compact references that native people were like us war mongering, inhuman imperialists, to replace your opinion with real "facts". Otherwise all you are doing is engaging in transference.

The Indian Massacre of 1622 occurred in the Colony of Virginia, in what now belongs to the United States of America, on Friday, March 22, 1622. Though he had not been in Virginia since 1609 and was thus not a firsthand eyewitness, Captain John Smith related in his History of Virginia that the Indians "came unarmed into our houses with deer, turkeys, fish, fruits, and other provisions to sell us".[1] Suddenly the Indians grabbed any tools or weapons available to them and killed any English settlers that were in sight, including men, women and children of all ages. Chief Opechancanough led a coordinated series of surprise attacks of the Powhatan Confederacy that killed 347 people, a quarter of the English population of Jamestown.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_massacre_of_1622

The Iroquois attack

On the rainy morning of August 5, 1689, Iroquois warriors used the element of surprise to launch their nighttime raid against the undefended settlement of Lachine. They traveled up the Saint Lawrence River by boat, crossed Lake Saint-Louis, and landed on the south shore of Montreal Island. While the colonists slept, the invaders surrounded their homes and waited for their leader to signal when the attack should commence.[7] They then proceeded to attack the homes, breaking down doors and windows, and dragged the colonists outside to meet their demise.[7] When some of the colonists barricaded themselves within the village's structures, the attackers set fire to the buildings and waited for them to flee the flames.[7][5] Fifty-six of the settlement's seventy-seven structures were effectively destroyed by fire.[2] Because the settlement was relatively sparse, any hope of counterattack was thwarted due to a lack of communication and an inability to organize.

Twenty-four colonists were killed in the initial raid,[8] and more than seventy were taken prisoner. The remaining Canadians were able to escape the attack.[2] Of those taken prisoner, close to fifty were tortured to death (burned alive and cannibalized), while some managed to escape and forty-two others were released in prisoner exchanges. A few young children were spared and actually adopted into Iroquois society.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lachine_massacre

[Shwa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_massacre_of_1622

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lachine_massacre

Finally, someone with some balls, thanks for that Dancer.

Now, TrueMetis and Canadien, using he examples that Mr. Dancer has so willingly given, please explain how this invalidates the notion of 'Noble Savage' that was assigned to C.R

[Shwa]

it's because one cannot even hint at the fact pre-contact Natives were, after all, human beings without you showing outrage. Thanks for proving it right here.

Gimme a break, more shallow bullshit from someone who ought to know better. Thanks for proving it right here.

[Robart]

Examples of early canadian literature describe explorers' experiences travelling with native canadians as they track down and kill northern natives (ancestors of modern inuit) just because they didn't like them. These pieces, as I remember from my first year canadian lit classes, were taken from diaries of the first settlers to this country. Those who regard native north americans as peaceful keepers of nature are delusional. They were just as capable as white settlers of being homicidal bastards.

[M.Dancer]

Finally, someone with some balls, thanks for that Dancer.

Now, TrueMetis and Canadien, using he examples that Mr. Dancer has so willingly given, please explain how this invalidates the notion of 'Noble Savage' that was assigned to C.R

The "noble savage" is a romantic european term...

I am as free as nature first made man,

Ere the base laws of servitude began,

When wild in woods the noble savage ran.

[Guest TrueMetis]

The "noble savage" is a romantic european term...

I am as free as nature first made man,

Ere the base laws of servitude began,

When wild in woods the noble savage ran.

Actually I was using the TV tropes version when I said it.

This guy

[The_Squid]

I know that my friend with dark skin and an accent is from Ghana. I know what village he is from and what his life was like over there.

Why? Cuz I asked.

That makes me a racist? That's funny... and completely absurd. I'm a white skinned person. Should I be ashamed of this? Not in the least...