Poll: Is Cracker a derogatory term? And can one be racist against white people?

[Morti]

Answering the two questions in the title: Yes. No.

For the first one, yes it derogatory, yes it is racial, no I do not approve of its use.

For the socond one, please realise that most of the time, when this is argument occurs, the debate is largely about the definition of the word "racism", not any of the practical effects that people actually encounter in life.

Simply put, I, and many others, particuarly those on the recieving end, do not see any value in leaving "racism" as just "racial discrimination" as it masks the very real imbalance in who feels that discrimination the most. Now, in day to day language, maybe that doesn't matter so much, but when actively discussing these issues, it is important to make clear that there is a pre-existing imbalance.

So, when you hear us say "racism", try to hear "racial discrimination that contributes to an existing system of oppression", or there abouts.

So calling a black person a "n*" is racist because this further re-inforces existing negative stereotypes (to be brief)(also death by a thousands cuts).

Calling a white person a "cracker" is not racist because all that happens is their feelings get hurt (if that).

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Yes Cracker is racist because its used as a racist insult to white people. Its also a really retard insult as well. Anyone regardless of colour can be racist against another person thats a different colour. Only problem is racism against white people is not seen as a big deal to anyone.

 

[BreakfastMan]

I suppose it is, as it is one of a whole two derogatory terms for white people in English (the other being honky). But I highly doubt any white people are actually offended by it. Somebody already posted the Louis CK clip, so I will just echo the sentiments found there about the offensiveness of those terms.

As for being racist against white people... Yes, but it almost never happens in the US (there are only a few select areas where one could run into this, i.e. Hawaii) and only happens in Europe against very specific sub-groups of people (and even that is not consistent throughout the continent), to my understanding.

 

[Tilly]

Racism is just any time you judge people purely by their race, so by definition you can be racist against all races. I'm white but I've never even heard of "cracker" so it's not gonna bother me much.

 

[Lunar Templar]

is it just me or are people getting dumber? I mean a LOT dumber.

Racism and Sexism has to do with how you view the other persons race/gender more then how much better off they may or may not be.

 

[Sleepy Sol]

snip

Ehh, I'm not sure if I really fully agree with that conclusion. And it's not really what the OP is asking, though I guess wording that question in such a way is a rather big oversimplification of the complex issue of racial relations. It's obviously possible to be racist against any race, but there are a lot of 'degrees' that people assign to these issues. An idea I'm not always fully comfortable with either. In what way do you think '******' promotes negative stereotypes, though? I don't think that that's the issue with the word; just its association with the prolonged period of slavery of black people in the United States.

To answer the OP, it can be a derogatory term, and its application can easily be racist based on intent. But I kinda just find it hilarious. Much I like I find the word nigga hilarious. Which I have admitted here to using rather often in friendly conversation. Thusly, I am marked to never know the warmth of Escapist forum friendship ever again. Dang.

That there has to be any amount of mistrust because of some arbitrary thing like skin color between people who are effectively no different from each other really sucks. Though I guess it is very much understandable given hundreds of years of history to look back on.

 

[Vigormortis]

Slave owners were rich and powerful. It's like when people taunt Jews about their 'Jewgold'. You're insulting them by referencing their wealth. Surely that's a poor insult?

Not when the implication is that that power is inherently evil, and that the target of the insult is just as evil.

It's a term used to place negative connotations on a person based on the color of that person's skin. If used derogatorily, the term, and those using it, are racist. Pure and simple.

Bigotry isn't a one-way street.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Yes (though not a very offensive one) and yes.

I'd thought that this would be obvious, but apparently some people weren't raised with the "treating someone differently because of their skin color is wrong, we're all similar on the inside so act accordingly" mentality that my parents instilled in me.

In short; the dictionary definition is the correct one.

Relatively recent efforts by 'Academia' to shift the goal posts, forcibly hammering caveats like power structures and oppression into a basic all-encompassing idea, is just disgusting. People insisting on parroting that nonsense in an obsequious fashion, hiding behind it to throw their stones in relative 'safety,' are equally loathsome and it speaks volumes about the character of any perpetrator.

Hell, you can even see this same argument being repeated in the comments on webster's site.

 

[senordesol]

Yes and yes.

I am tired of people who are looking for excuses to be bigots because either they or their ancestors caught an unlucky break.

The Power + Prejudice thing doesn't even make any sense.

How much power? How big a sphere of influence do you need? Where are these supposed hard lines between when someone is a raging racist and not?

 

[NiPah]

Racist? Yes. Is it possible to be racist against white people? Yes, but it'll never be as substantial as people who aren't white will experience in many if not all of the pre-dominantly white nations of the world. A raindrop to a storm.

That's quite a bold statement to make, also completely unprovable since we don't have a way to measure substantiality of amount of racism centered on a certain group.

Discrimination, hate crimes, how often police target them, etc. There's plenty of metrics of measurement.

Well, since you made the claim I'm going to have to ask you to back it up via some definitions (IE what qualifies as discrimination, hate crime, police targeting), find some studies or data, and support the argument that racism verses white people is unsubstantial when compared to black people in nations predominately populated by white people.

Like I said you made quite a bold claim, back it up.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Really? No white person ever been harassed by the cops. I know I had.

You omitted "because of their race" there.

No minority can arrange to be in the company of their own race? That's BS! I see people of all races hanging out with people of their own race.

You omitted "most of the time" there.

Even if you checked off every category that she list in the end of her blog, that doesn't mean you have won the lottery.

Yes, which is probably why she didn't say it does.

Privilege does not guarantee you a good life, it gives you advantages over people who don't have it.

This gets brought up in more or less every discussion about privilege ever, because people opposed to the idea keep misrepresenting it.

 

[WhateverDude]

Yes, it is racist. White people prefer 'saltine-american.'

Please get it right, less you offend.

 

[Morti]

snip

Ehh, I'm not sure if I really fully agree with that conclusion. And it's not really what the OP is asking, though I guess wording that question in such a way is a rather big oversimplification of the complex issue of racial relations. It's obviously possible to be racist against any race, but there are a lot of 'degrees' that people assign to these issues. An idea I'm not always fully comfortable with either. In what way do you think '******' promotes negative stereotypes, though? I don't think that that's the issue with the word; just its association with the prolonged period of slavery of black people in the United States.

I was probably a bit too succinct, that may not have been the right phrasing. But this highlights the biggest issue with tackling modern racism (and, indeed, the other 'ism); there is no single, "big ticket" item to rally everyone behind now. Baning segregation, done. Property rights, done. Voting rights, done. Baning slavery, done. What is still left is cleaning up all the crap left behind after those.

On it's own, calling someone "n*" is not really a big deal, but the problem is is it that it is not just occuring on its own, it's occuring at the same time as a multitude of other things that don't really matter so much on their own (lower inheritance, worse schools, "police issues", lack of role models in media, abundance of bad roles in media, workplace discrimination, etc), it's a death by a thousand cuts scenario.

Contrast with calling a white person a cracker, where it is a problem, but it is just occuring on its own. They will be able to go home, turn on the tv and see plenty of reports white CEOs, actors, plots about how awesome they are, news stories about how the "thugs" are rioting again whilst there children come home from a nice school whilst safe in the knowledge that if they get fired, it was probably due to something they need, not just because their new manager was looking for the flimsiest excuse to get rid of them.

 

[KissingSunlight]

Really? No white person ever been harassed by the cops. I know I had.

You omitted "because of their race" there.

No minority can arrange to be in the company of their own race? That's BS! I see people of all races hanging out with people of their own race.

You omitted "most of the time" there.

Even if you checked off every category that she list in the end of her blog, that doesn't mean you have won the lottery.

Yes, which is probably why she didn't say it does.

Privilege does not guarantee you a good life, it gives you advantages over people who don't have it.

This gets brought up in more or less every discussion about privilege ever, because people opposed to the idea keep misrepresenting it.

Yes, I have been stopped by the police, because of my race. I live in a predominately minority neighborhood. Police proudly proclaim to a local newspaper that they will pull over any white person in any minority neighborhoods, because they suspect them of dealing or buying drugs.

"Most of the time"? Can you prove it's really that hard for minorities to call up a few people of their own race and ask, "Do you wanna hangout?"

Here is the quote from her blog:

As you can see, belonging to one or more category of privilege, especially being a straight, white, middle-class, able-bodied male, can be like winning a lottery you didn't even know you were playing.

I want to do a thought experiment with you and everyone else who thinks that privilege is genetics. There are 2 people. One person can check off 5 of the 6 categories (I am excluding "class") that this blogger consider to be privilege: Citizenship, Sexual Orientation, Sex, Ability, and Gender Identity. However, this person is living in poverty. He has a part-time job at minimum wage. He is struggling to make ends meet. The other person can not claim privilege in any of the 5 categories. Yet, this person is a millionaire. She doesn't need a job and have no trouble paying the bills. Who should be considered privileged?

 

[Skatologist]

I suppose it is, as it is one of a whole two derogatory terms for white people in English (the other being honky). But I highly doubt any white people are actually offended by it. Somebody already posted the Louis CK clip, so I will just echo the sentiments found there about the offensiveness of those terms.

As for being racist against white people... Yes, but it almost never happens in the US (there are only a few select areas where one could run into this, i.e. Hawaii) and only happens in Europe against very specific sub-groups of people (and even that is not consistent throughout the continent), to my understanding.

Pretty close to my views on the matter. It and honky aren't the only negative der. terms for white people in English though: http://www.rsdb.org/race/whites

So let it snip

Agree very much with this sentiment too, although I would say the next hurdle of the black community would be a major reform to the criminal justice system and long standing practices that have been detrimental to blacks.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Yes it's racist.
Yes you can be racist to white people.
No I'm not offended by it, because honestly that's a pretty dumb slur. I like crackers.
If you go out of your way to treat people differently based on the colour of their skin, you're a fuckwit hands down. Racism is an intensely stupid thing, one rooted in ignorance, willful or otherwise.

So to reiterate, if someone were to say the things "socialist dad" said to me, my response would be "I'm not offended, but you most certainly are a fuckwit".

 

[Sleepy Sol]

I was probably a bit too succinct, that may not have been the right phrasing. But this highlights the biggest issue with tackling modern racism (and, indeed, the other 'ism); there is no single, "big ticket" item to rally everyone behind now. Baning segregation, done. Property rights, done. Voting rights, done. Baning slavery, done. What is still left is cleaning up all the crap left behind after those.

On it's own, calling someone "n*" is not really a big deal, but the problem is is it that it is not just occuring on its own, it's occuring at the same time as a multitude of other things that don't really matter so much on their own (lower inheritance, worse schools, "police issues", lack of role models in media, abundance of bad roles in media, workplace discrimination, etc), it's a death by a thousand cuts scenario.

Contrast with calling a white person a cracker, where it is a problem, but it is just occuring on its own. They will be able to go home, turn on the tv and see plenty of reports white CEOs, actors, plots about how awesome they are, news stories about how the "thugs" are rioting again whilst there children come home from a nice school whilst safe in the knowledge that if they get fired, it was probably due to something they need, not just because their new manager was looking for the flimsiest excuse to get rid of them.

I'm inclined to think that someone's racist grandpa calling black people niggers doesn't really tangibly add to any problems black people face in America. Pretty sure if people catch wind of you using the word seriously now that you're going to face some pretty major consequences in a number of ways. Whether it's through being reprimanded at your job/losing it in all likelihood, or facing massive flak from your personal acquaintances.

Which isn't to say racism is dead by any means, because you don't need a word to exhibit it. I agree with you that blacks are discriminated against in many ways in many places across America, and with many of the points you listed on what problems they face. I just don't think using the word ****** contributes to that system in any meaningful way anymore. To be simple, I think it's one of the racial issues you feel are "done" and over with as far as a real detriment to black citizens in the United States.

Racism just evolved to be more mild and "family-friendly." Though I'd wish it would be gone permanently.

 

[Dizchu]

I don't think the terms "cracker" or "honkey" are racist in the same way "******", "kike" or "wetback" are (because it was used to attack those in authority, if I'm not mistaken). Actually, I think they're hilarious slurs, it's fun to take humorous jabs at white people. What I think crosses the line between fun and inappropriate is when people act upon white stereotypes (the same with any other stereotypes).

It's okay to poke fun at so-called "ebonic" language or at certain elements of what's considered "black" or "Asian" culture, even the social justice crowd on the internet like appropriating such things. But when you assume things about actual people because of those stereotypes, that crosses the line for me. The "angry white boys are school shooters in the making" stereotype is hilarious, but when you assume "oh wow white male teenagers are super dangerous and deserve to be the scapegoat for all of our social ills"... ehh... no?

Same goes for black youths. "Gangsta" culture can be entertaining when there is self-awareness involved. I love me some NWA and Snoop Dogg, they're irreverent and play up stereotypes for entertainment value. However, once you assume that a black male in a hoodie is a thug by default, you can fuck right off.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

Simply put, I, and many others, particuarly those on the recieving end, do not see any value in leaving "racism" as just "racial discrimination" as it masks the very real imbalance in who feels that discrimination the most. Now, in day to day language, maybe that doesn't matter so much, but when actively discussing these issues, it is important to make clear that there is a pre-existing imbalance.

Why? We have a special term for that already: institutionalized racism. Why muddled up discussions and move the goal posts by reimagining the word racist to be something more to your liking?

Calling a white person a "cracker" is not racist because all that happens is their feelings get hurt (if that).

Oh please. As though anything worse will happen when a black guy is called a ******.

I want to do a thought experiment with you and everyone else who thinks that privilege is genetics. There are 2 people. One person can check off 5 of the 6 categories (I am excluding "class") that this blogger consider to be privilege: Citizenship, Sexual Orientation, Sex, Ability, and Gender Identity. However, this person is living in poverty. He has a part-time job at minimum wage. He is struggling to make ends meet. The other person can not claim privilege in any of the 5 categories. Yet, this person is a millionaire. She doesn't need a job and have no trouble paying the bills. Who should be considered privileged?

Yeah. People seem to forget that on the privileged scale, gender, sexual orientation etc etc are ounce weights, while money is a stone weight.

 

[irishda]

Personally I think racism can be exacted upon anyone, that includes white people, heck the exclusion of white people from racism is in and of itself racist to me.

And personally I've only ever come across the term "cracker" when looking at salty stuff or when a black person was trying to be demeaning to a white one even if they had every right to be hostile in the situation.


So escapist what is your opinion on this?

You can be racist towards white people. But that's not exactly the issue. The issue is the prevalence and effect of that racism. White people have far greater safe spaces than other minorities, and are overwhelmingly the leaders of American and European society, for the most part.

To that end there is no racial problem against white people that will not be solved promptly, that is assuming there even IS a problem to begin with. If white people are in a rough neighborhood, and are discriminated because of their skin color, there are more than enough areas they can go without facing that discrimination. Even if the unthinkable were to happen and they were to be assaulted or even murdered because of the color of their skin, rest assured that every effort would be made to find and arrest the perpetrators, as has been proven time and again when white people are the victims of black criminals.

Compare that to the racism others face; racism wherein people argue whether or not this person of color was justifiably killed despite being proven beyond a doubt to be unarmed, or to already be restrained and neutralized. That's why this is and continues to be a bullshit question every time I hear it, and will likely continue to hear it from white people who just don't get it. Someone might have been mean to you once because of the color of your skin, maybe even angry at you, but that sure as fuck doesn't mean you've been the victim of racism.