Do you have to be white

I misread your last post. Disregard

 

This is true, but many, many minorities don't think (and claim) that they can't be racist. I've had this conversation with many different minorities, and strangely enough - Asians seem to be the most racist to me, at least from my small subset of data. Although their racism seems to be more region based to other Asians.

 

Your experience is obviously different than mine. But that's not a word I hear very often. My own people (meaning Americans) have called me and mine so many slurs we just expect it now b

 

I'm not going to say it happens often, but it has happened many times in my life (I'm 37)... and I am not saying I've gotten it anywhere near as much as minorities would get a racial slur.

I've lived in Sharpstown for 10 years (which is just 6% white), and in that time I've heard it all from pretty much every race - and I still love it here. People are going to be assholes, and me reacting just gives them what they want.

 

People in this great world of ours discriminate. Think the word racist is thrown around so much...We all discriminate in some shape form or fashion.
Whether you are white, black, latino, european, or asian...etc. Each ethnic group has preconceived stereotypes that they have about another.

What I hate is when people equate nationalism to racism...That alone is ignorant and idiotic. Making Amercia Great is about AMERICANS first..regardless of being white, black, asian, latino, natives...Trump's draw is about nationalism and ways to combat globalism.

This is seen worldwide at this point. Especially in Europe. Brexit, Frexit, Auxit, Grexit...these are all movements to combat globalism.

 

Look you mean well...but you have to understand that for some Trump supporters their nationalism is about white people. Not all americans...it's about making sure that white people are the majority.

I will equate WHITE nationalism to racism because it assumes other races shouldn't share the same land with you.

 

As a Hispanic male, it has been my experience that term white is much less of a trigger word. We tend to use it more as a matter of fact (like saying that tall(ish) person).

 

It's been the left that has just recently pushed the narrative that minorities cannot be racist because of the lack of privilege and empowerment. SJW and BLM are two primary examples that have pushed this as of late...

 

FIFY

 

Funny how all the Trumpers were so quick to jump in on this. I'm not reproaching, I know they have grievances here -- just made me laugh.

Of course anyone can be racist. Whites may be a little less sensitive to racism because of our privileged position. But we see racism in all kinds of people. The only times I see this claim that "I can't be racist because I'm a minority" is in anecdotes by conservative whites about the entitlement minorities supposedly enjoy. I've never heard a minority say such a thing. It might be defensible for a minority to say, "I never supported, through commission or omission, the current social construct in which white people enjoy more social benefits than minorities because of their whiteness, and I never had the opportunity to create a construct in which I would get net benefits because of the color of my own skin." A political opponent might hear that as denying racism based on their minority status.

But, this is the whole wrong conversation to have anyway. 'Racist', like all words with political currency, has been rendered pretty useless by all the encumbrance put on it by partisans in an adjacent political fight. It's a shorthand that's gotten out of control.

The reason it came up in the US around BLM, Trump, etc is because there are minority groups that are still impacted by official and commercial discrimination and have been agitating to get reforms to reduce or remove this discrimination they suffer. The reaction by their opposition -- possibly because they bristled at the implication that they were racists -- was to say that the claims of discrimination are overblown and that nothing needs to change. After that is where we get into this fruitless argument about who is the racist: the BLM protester who 'wants special treatment' or the white tea partier who 'wants to go on repressing minorities.' There are racists in both groups, but I don't think the broad allegiances to either group is driven by racism. Accusations of racism are negotiation killers, which is why it's so stupid to focus on particular alleged racists (Trump or Micah Johnson) and smear an entire political position with it. Even if your opposition really is racist, they still have political power and you still have to negotiate a compromise, so it's usually best to hold your tongue.

Blacks have a real grievance. The statistics show many insidious ways in which they are singled out for justice system persecution. Their opposition, though, is facing proposals to drastically overhaul law enforcement and the courts to address this persecution with a future that is unknown but probably involves risk (more danger for cops, perhaps less effective control of criminals) and cost (especially to provide adequate representation to defendants, but also things like funding state activities without relying on court fees and traffic tickets). That's what we should be talking about instead of who's the racist. Same with illegal immigrants who came because of our dysfunctional immigration policies, have since been exploited because of their status, and that have now stayed so long as to be irreversible. But, to fix this problem means to allow impunity and maybe encourage future illegal immigration, and to absorb a lot of costs -- fair wages for legalized workers, increased labor competition for native workers, etc. Same on Muslims who want their constitutionally protected freedom of religion, but opposition sees a risk to their own safety. Someone might be racist in these issues but it doesn't matter; we have to negotiate it anyway. Shorthand about racism gets in the way and doesn't elucidate anything. We should instead speak in longhand about the actual issues, the actual grievance, the actual costs and risks of change.

 

I grew up with the saying "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will not hurt me" As a child, sometimes, name calling and bullying would hurt. As a teen, being young and dumb, I would let words trigger me to aggression. As an adult I don't understand how words hurt?
As a hispanic, I've been called p***y whipped because I'd rather be with my hot gf than hang out at a sausage fest. I've been called a coconut because I didn't support Hilary. I've been called a traitor to my people because I think if you don't immigrate legally, you should be sent back to where you came from.

And in the end, it all means precisely nothing to me. I am who I am, and if someone doesn't like it, that's their problem. Not mine. If you want to have words, I'll have words in response. All these safe spaces, and triggers, and getting butthurt with words blows my mind. I can't believe how delicate some people are.

 

I think you need to talk to the right people to understand racism. No one here has really qualified the definition of racism. If someone says that only whites can be racist, don't assume that their definition of racism is exactly like your own. Ask them what their definition of racism is and then follow them up on it. If you ask me what my definition of racism is I will answer you.

 

Hopefully you realize that people are quick to jump to something here, mainly because they are procrastinating at work.

 

I wouldn't say racism has gotten worse over the last few years. Social media has made it harder to hide. A lot of the things my parents experienced are still happening. There are still areas of this country I won't drive through unless I absolutely have to and I have both of my uniforms displayed in the car.

There was a public Klan rally down the street from my alma matter as well as a depiction of a lynched black person a few months back. That was common place in my father's childhood

 

In practice, yes. It's MUCH easier to push a narrative of racism if you call a person a "white Hispanic" due to the automatic assumption of racism. In fact, if George Zimmerman had his mom's surname of Mesa, that would have never been a national story because the "white Hispanic" angle would have been harder to push and we all know "Hispanic man shoots black man in self defense" simply isn't a story anyone cares about.

 

Kind of a similar question as the OP...

Is expecting white males to vote one way and females or any variety of tan he other way NOT racist/sexist? Seems like it is when black people feel the need to respond to going against the grain, women for going against the prescribed notion.

It may be impossible to avoid the correlations altogether. I think counting on these divisions as heavily as each party did/does is contributing to the reactions. I think all the constant labeling and decrying is furthering division rather than bringing anyone together.