Attention white people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
IME, all races get the benefit of having ethnicities EXCEPT for black people. It's very easy for folks to understand Italian/Irish/German/Scottish/Swedish etc and recognize that they are different ethnicities of white people, but when you get to black people and AA/Nigerian/South African/Kenyan/etc, folks are scratching their heads. Amazing.

Actually, you're wrong. Those aren't different ethinicities of white people, they're different nationalities. Nationality is one's country of origin, ethnicity refers to racial ancestry. They all share common racial ancestry, assuming you are talking about white Germans, Swedes, etc. That's not necessarily an accurate assumption, though. There are also Finns who are Indigineous peoples, the Sami. Not White European Finns. Finnish Nationality, Sami Ethnicity.

My apologies; I used the wrong term. I meant nationality, but my argument still stands.

No it doesn't. If you replace ethnicity in the sentence with nationality you get:
IME, all races get the benefit of having nationalities EXCEPT for black people. It's very easy for folks to understand Italian/Irish/German/Scottish/Swedish etc and recognize that they are different nationalities of white people, but when you get to black people and AA/Nigerian/South African/Kenyan/etc, folks are scratching their heads. Amazing.

That makes no sense. By your argument, you stated that AA is a term for blacks brought from Africa to the Americas as slaves. Only US blacks identify as AA--Brazilian blacks don't, and there are 4 million there--far more than were ever brough to the US (100 times more). AAs have a nationality--American;.

SOrry, what was your point again?

How do you know how other blacks identify themselves? Some island folks (Trinidadian, Jamaican, Brazilian, etc) choose to use the designation; some don't. It's absolutely their choice. Either way is okay with them, but that DOES NOT hold true for those who are born in Africa and who later came to the US. It's about your origins *in Africa*, not elsewhere.

Brazil is not an island.

The whole point of this exchange appears to be the difference between nationality and ethnicity, not how people self-identify, and not about choice. If you are born in Africa, your origins are in Africa, particularly if they go back generations. In fact, one could argue that EVERYONE's origins are in Africa, so you are in danger of diluting your own argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holy, fuck. Can we simply stop these damn threads. Everyone wants to play the victim. I am a victim because I am a poor black. I am a victim because I am a rich black assumed to have been a poor black. I am a victim because I was a poor white assumed to have privileged I never had. I am victim because I am a rich white and have to pay for everyone else. I am a victim because I am an asian and everyone expects me to have superior intelligence....Where the hell does it stop. As a young child I understood that racism is wrong. However, all this victimization is just about to push me somewhere I don't want to go.

Best post on this thread so far. If everyone would just put their heads down, do the best they can, and quit wasting energy on pinpointing some imagined disadvantage we'd all be happier and better off.

Amazing. In your criticism of those passing judgement, you've managed to do the same.

Feel free to continue shouldering that chip but realize that it's off-putting and making life harder than it has to be.

Ah..the old "chip" fallback. How original.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Holy, fuck. Can we simply stop these damn threads. Everyone wants to play the victim. I am a victim because I am a poor black. I am a victim because I am a rich black assumed to have been a poor black. I am a victim because I was a poor white assumed to have privileged I never had. I am victim because I am a rich white and have to pay for everyone else. I am a victim because I am an asian and everyone expects me to have superior intelligence....Where the hell does it stop. As a young child I understood that racism is wrong. However, all this victimization is just about to push me somewhere I don't want to go.


My problem with people like you is that you discount people by calling them victims. Progress can not be made when you have such a disdain for the struggles of others.

People like me? I am a fucking white person who grew up in abject poverty in an abusive home and I managed to claw my way out of the gutter. I don't claim victimhood. I am a survivor and yet every fucking day I have to hear about my goddamn privilege from people who don't have a damn clue about what it means to go to bed hungry or wear shoes with holes or have no winter coat. So yeah, I am getting pretty fed up with middle and upper class blacks claiming vicim hood. Get a fucking grip. Most people have struggles in life. I was never a racists until I started frequenting this board had had to hear about my privilege over and over and over again. People need to get a clue.

Interesting. You are actually claming it now...whether you realize it or not.

I am AA. Grew up poor as fvck. I am now very wealthy - worked for every goddamn thing I got. I am offended by your generalization because I would never claim victimhood - even when I was actually a victim. And MOST AA people I know are that way too. In fact, the White people in my circle claim victimhood MUCH more than the AA's I know.

And if coming to this board "made" you a racist...you were ALREADY a racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White person here I have seriously never asked anyone "their story".

I feel like more often than not it's black people telling me about racism than me actually seeing racism in real life. One of my close black friends recently said to me "I think I didn't get the job because I'm black." umm pretty sure he was the only one thinking about the color of his skin in the interview.

spoken as a white person who really has no fucking clue

You should see some of our affirmative action hires

yeah, in my agency those hires are white women and then the diversity office checks the affirmative action report as 100% complete.

This is bs. Unless you work in an engineering firm or something, in this area there are far more women than men candidates

+100 I am in biotech for a govt agency and 85% are women. They aren't counted as minorities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not ALL successful black people are first generation successes. People stop assuming all of us fought to get out of the ghetto and had to walk through needled littered streets to our fatherless section 8 apartment every day of our youth. I hate when people want to know "my story." How did I manage to make it against such odds!! I actually grew up upper middle class, as did a lot of other brown people. Rant over.

OP. no one cares about your story. In a few years the Latinos and Asians will leave you and many whites behind as they rebuild the US economy with their muscles and brains. What are you going to whine about then?

Non-Latino caucasians and African Americans were the primary people who built this country. Fought in Revolution and Civil War. We also have muscles and brains. Stop insulting us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
IME, all races get the benefit of having ethnicities EXCEPT for black people. It's very easy for folks to understand Italian/Irish/German/Scottish/Swedish etc and recognize that they are different ethnicities of white people, but when you get to black people and AA/Nigerian/South African/Kenyan/etc, folks are scratching their heads. Amazing.

Actually, you're wrong. Those aren't different ethinicities of white people, they're different nationalities. Nationality is one's country of origin, ethnicity refers to racial ancestry. They all share common racial ancestry, assuming you are talking about white Germans, Swedes, etc. That's not necessarily an accurate assumption, though. There are also Finns who are Indigineous peoples, the Sami. Not White European Finns. Finnish Nationality, Sami Ethnicity.

My apologies; I used the wrong term. I meant nationality, but my argument still stands.

No it doesn't. If you replace ethnicity in the sentence with nationality you get:
IME, all races get the benefit of having nationalities EXCEPT for black people. It's very easy for folks to understand Italian/Irish/German/Scottish/Swedish etc and recognize that they are different nationalities of white people, but when you get to black people and AA/Nigerian/South African/Kenyan/etc, folks are scratching their heads. Amazing.

That makes no sense. By your argument, you stated that AA is a term for blacks brought from Africa to the Americas as slaves. Only US blacks identify as AA--Brazilian blacks don't, and there are 4 million there--far more than were ever brough to the US (100 times more). AAs have a nationality--American;.

SOrry, what was your point again?

How do you know how other blacks identify themselves? Some island folks (Trinidadian, Jamaican, Brazilian, etc) choose to use the designation; some don't. It's absolutely their choice. Either way is okay with them, but that DOES NOT hold true for those who are born in Africa and who later came to the US. It's about your origins *in Africa*, not elsewhere.

Brazil is not an island.

The whole point of this exchange appears to be the difference between nationality and ethnicity, not how people self-identify, and not about choice. If you are born in Africa, your origins are in Africa, particularly if they go back generations. In fact, one could argue that EVERYONE's origins are in Africa, so you are in danger of diluting your own argument.

I'm aware that Brazil is not an island. That still does not negate the point that slaves were brought there (as such, there *ancestors* were from Africa).

No, my point is about the term African-American. Many are clueless on its definition and I fail to see how some can take such offense to a term when they don't even know its meaning.

Yes, you could argue that everyone is from Africa, but could you also argue that your ancestors were apart of the slave trade that landed you in the Americas? It's really not rocket science here, folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Holy, fuck. Can we simply stop these damn threads. Everyone wants to play the victim. I am a victim because I am a poor black. I am a victim because I am a rich black assumed to have been a poor black. I am a victim because I was a poor white assumed to have privileged I never had. I am victim because I am a rich white and have to pay for everyone else. I am a victim because I am an asian and everyone expects me to have superior intelligence....Where the hell does it stop. As a young child I understood that racism is wrong. However, all this victimization is just about to push me somewhere I don't want to go.


My problem with people like you is that you discount people by calling them victims. Progress can not be made when you have such a disdain for the struggles of others.

People like me? I am a fucking white person who grew up in abject poverty in an abusive home and I managed to claw my way out of the gutter. I don't claim victimhood. I am a survivor and yet every fucking day I have to hear about my goddamn privilege from people who don't have a damn clue about what it means to go to bed hungry or wear shoes with holes or have no winter coat. So yeah, I am getting pretty fed up with middle and upper class blacks claiming vicim hood. Get a fucking grip. Most people have struggles in life. I was never a racists until I started frequenting this board had had to hear about my privilege over and over and over again. People need to get a clue.

Interesting. You are actually claming it now...whether you realize it or not.

I am AA. Grew up poor as fvck. I am now very wealthy - worked for every goddamn thing I got. I am offended by your generalization because I would never claim victimhood - even when I was actually a victim. And MOST AA people I know are that way too. In fact, the White people in my circle claim victimhood MUCH more than the AA's I know.

And if coming to this board "made" you a racist...you were ALREADY a racist.

Agreed. The whole "Mexicans are stealing our jobs" is masked as national pride.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would just ask White people to consider one point. I will say in advance that I am not trying to stir the pot - just being honest. I am upper middle class AA. My parents were college educated middle class. My grandparents were college educated middle class on one side and prominent farmers on the other. Both my parents and grandparents lived that majority of their lives in the segregated South.

Many AA's (and certainly our parents and grandparents) have experienced racism firsthand regardeless of SES. Whites used our color and the various labels as tools of discrminination to deny equal treatment and equal opportunity. AA's, as a method of survival, internalized these labels.

Sure, some people lean on racism as a crutch. But many of us, rich or poor, HAVE experienced racism at some level and from some places we could not expect. Whites now think we overreact and sometimes we do, but sometimes it IS about race.

My point is that you cannot use color and labels against a people for generations and then expect that people to disregard all of that because the world has changed somewhat.

I do agree with a PP that SES is going to be the next big -ism issue.

Likewise, not all white people have had privileged backgrounds, and some of them have in fact lost out on college or job opportunities because an affirmative action candidate who was objectively less qualified hot the spot. All of these things can be true. I have seen African-American friends and colleagues discriminated against in my view based on their ethnicity. I myself was explicitly told while working at a law firm that I was the top choice for partnership in our department, but I should realize the firm would probably make their second choice partner because he was African American. He is a good lawyer, and we are friends. As associated, though, we had shared our reviews with each other, and, objectively speaking, my reviews were consistently stronger. Luckily, I left the firm for a better position, but it was a frustrating situation. He felt terrible, and some partners at the firm still, completely inappropriately, blame him for my departure.

I have seen that happen along racial and gender lines. But we both know that strong associate reviews and being a good lawyer are not the only criteria used when making a partner. Law firm partnership is one of the most subjective processes out there. I am AA and when I was in a firm, I had associate reviews through the roof, but did not have the ready book of business that the WM had who ultimately got the vote. It kind of relates to the earlier point of, in any given circumstance, "qualified" may mean different things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holy, fuck. Can we simply stop these damn threads. Everyone wants to play the victim. I am a victim because I am a poor black. I am a victim because I am a rich black assumed to have been a poor black. I am a victim because I was a poor white assumed to have privileged I never had. I am victim because I am a rich white and have to pay for everyone else. I am a victim because I am an asian and everyone expects me to have superior intelligence....Where the hell does it stop. As a young child I understood that racism is wrong. However, all this victimization is just about to push me somewhere I don't want to go.

Best post on this thread so far. If everyone would just put their heads down, do the best they can, and quit wasting energy on pinpointing some imagined disadvantage we'd all be happier and better off.

Amazing. In your criticism of those passing judgement, you've managed to do the same.

Feel free to continue shouldering that chip but realize that it's off-putting and making life harder than it has to be.

Ah..the old "chip" fallback. How original.

Huge example of white privilege - the emoticons are white!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
IME, all races get the benefit of having ethnicities EXCEPT for black people. It's very easy for folks to understand Italian/Irish/German/Scottish/Swedish etc and recognize that they are different ethnicities of white people, but when you get to black people and AA/Nigerian/South African/Kenyan/etc, folks are scratching their heads. Amazing.

Actually, you're wrong. Those aren't different ethinicities of white people, they're different nationalities. Nationality is one's country of origin, ethnicity refers to racial ancestry. They all share common racial ancestry, assuming you are talking about white Germans, Swedes, etc. That's not necessarily an accurate assumption, though. There are also Finns who are Indigineous peoples, the Sami. Not White European Finns. Finnish Nationality, Sami Ethnicity.

My apologies; I used the wrong term. I meant nationality, but my argument still stands.

No it doesn't. If you replace ethnicity in the sentence with nationality you get:
IME, all races get the benefit of having nationalities EXCEPT for black people. It's very easy for folks to understand Italian/Irish/German/Scottish/Swedish etc and recognize that they are different nationalities of white people, but when you get to black people and AA/Nigerian/South African/Kenyan/etc, folks are scratching their heads. Amazing.

That makes no sense. By your argument, you stated that AA is a term for blacks brought from Africa to the Americas as slaves. Only US blacks identify as AA--Brazilian blacks don't, and there are 4 million there--far more than were ever brough to the US (100 times more). AAs have a nationality--American;.

SOrry, what was your point again?

How do you know how other blacks identify themselves? Some island folks (Trinidadian, Jamaican, Brazilian, etc) choose to use the designation; some don't. It's absolutely their choice. Either way is okay with them, but that DOES NOT hold true for those who are born in Africa and who later came to the US. It's about your origins *in Africa*, not elsewhere.

Brazil is not an island.

The whole point of this exchange appears to be the difference between nationality and ethnicity, not how people self-identify, and not about choice. If you are born in Africa, your origins are in Africa, particularly if they go back generations. In fact, one could argue that EVERYONE's origins are in Africa, so you are in danger of diluting your own argument.

I'm aware that Brazil is not an island. That still does not negate the point that slaves were brought there (as such, there *ancestors* were from Africa).

No, my point is about the term African-American. Many are clueless on its definition and I fail to see how some can take such offense to a term when they don't even know its meaning.

Yes, you could argue that everyone is from Africa, but could you also argue that your ancestors were apart of the slave trade that landed you in the Americas? It's really not rocket science here, folks.

Whether or not my ancestors came here as part of the slave trade has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that your (and I presume you were the original author of it) statement made no sense. I understand the term African-American, and its origin, as well as the difference between nationality and ethnicity. THat is what was under discussion. I think you're just having trouble with that concept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holy, fuck. Can we simply stop these damn threads. Everyone wants to play the victim. I am a victim because I am a poor black. I am a victim because I am a rich black assumed to have been a poor black. I am a victim because I was a poor white assumed to have privileged I never had. I am victim because I am a rich white and have to pay for everyone else. I am a victim because I am an asian and everyone expects me to have superior intelligence....Where the hell does it stop. As a young child I understood that racism is wrong. However, all this victimization is just about to push me somewhere I don't want to go.

Best post on this thread so far. If everyone would just put their heads down, do the best they can, and quit wasting energy on pinpointing some imagined disadvantage we'd all be happier and better off.

Amazing. In your criticism of those passing judgement, you've managed to do the same.

Feel free to continue shouldering that chip but realize that it's off-putting and making life harder than it has to be.

Ah..the old "chip" fallback. How original.

Huge example of white privilege - the emoticons are white!

Hhhm..THey're yellow. Want me to say it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
IME, all races get the benefit of having ethnicities EXCEPT for black people. It's very easy for folks to understand Italian/Irish/German/Scottish/Swedish etc and recognize that they are different ethnicities of white people, but when you get to black people and AA/Nigerian/South African/Kenyan/etc, folks are scratching their heads. Amazing.

Actually, you're wrong. Those aren't different ethinicities of white people, they're different nationalities. Nationality is one's country of origin, ethnicity refers to racial ancestry. They all share common racial ancestry, assuming you are talking about white Germans, Swedes, etc. That's not necessarily an accurate assumption, though. There are also Finns who are Indigineous peoples, the Sami. Not White European Finns. Finnish Nationality, Sami Ethnicity.

My apologies; I used the wrong term. I meant nationality, but my argument still stands.

No it doesn't. If you replace ethnicity in the sentence with nationality you get:
IME, all races get the benefit of having nationalities EXCEPT for black people. It's very easy for folks to understand Italian/Irish/German/Scottish/Swedish etc and recognize that they are different nationalities of white people, but when you get to black people and AA/Nigerian/South African/Kenyan/etc, folks are scratching their heads. Amazing.

That makes no sense. By your argument, you stated that AA is a term for blacks brought from Africa to the Americas as slaves. Only US blacks identify as AA--Brazilian blacks don't, and there are 4 million there--far more than were ever brough to the US (100 times more). AAs have a nationality--American;.

SOrry, what was your point again?

How do you know how other blacks identify themselves? Some island folks (Trinidadian, Jamaican, Brazilian, etc) choose to use the designation; some don't. It's absolutely their choice. Either way is okay with them, but that DOES NOT hold true for those who are born in Africa and who later came to the US. It's about your origins *in Africa*, not elsewhere.

Brazil is not an island.

The whole point of this exchange appears to be the difference between nationality and ethnicity, not how people self-identify, and not about choice. If you are born in Africa, your origins are in Africa, particularly if they go back generations. In fact, one could argue that EVERYONE's origins are in Africa, so you are in danger of diluting your own argument.

I'm aware that Brazil is not an island. That still does not negate the point that slaves were brought there (as such, there *ancestors* were from Africa).

No, my point is about the term African-American. Many are clueless on its definition and I fail to see how some can take such offense to a term when they don't even know its meaning.

Yes, you could argue that everyone is from Africa, but could you also argue that your ancestors were apart of the slave trade that landed you in the Americas? It's really not rocket science here, folks.

Whether or not my ancestors came here as part of the slave trade has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that your (and I presume you were the original author of it) statement made no sense. I understand the term African-American, and its origin, as well as the difference between nationality and ethnicity. THat is what was under discussion. I think you're just having trouble with that concept.

Let me ask you this: What is the statement that you think I'm making? My goal was simply to define African-American. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hear ya!! Try telling that to a college admissions board.

It was very frustrating when the black kids (with same privileges and upbringing) were able to get into colleges with only a 3.0 grade pt average and average SATs while those of us with 4.0+ did not.

Not. ALL the white guys on the volleyball team at a mjor Ivy I know had BAD scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear ya!! Try telling that to a college admissions board.

It was very frustrating when the black kids (with same privileges and upbringing) were able to get into colleges with only a 3.0 grade pt average and average SATs while those of us with 4.0+ did not.

Not. ALL the white guys on the volleyball team at a mjor Ivy I know had BAD scores.

Getting preferential treatment because your family are on the alumni? No problem.
Getting preferential treatment to add some diversity to the student body by letting in more well-rounded (but not necessarily smarter) minorities? SHAME!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear ya!! Try telling that to a college admissions board.

It was very frustrating when the black kids (with same privileges and upbringing) were able to get into colleges with only a 3.0 grade pt average and average SATs while those of us with 4.0+ did not.

Not. ALL the white guys on the volleyball team at a mjor Ivy I know had BAD scores.

Getting preferential treatment because your family are on the alumni? No problem.
Getting preferential treatment to add some diversity to the student body by letting in more well-rounded (but not necessarily smarter) minorities? SHAME!

They were there for athletics Einstein.