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

[Smooth Operator]

Odd I always heard it as a reference to "crack heads", quite the range that one gets.
And really on the subject of "racist slurs" look far an wide enough you will find every word we have means something bad in some language and someone is going to be pissy at you. So the best solution is to avoid pissy people.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

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.

Yes, but completely irrelevant. Racism towards someone isn't worse because his/her race is the target of it more or less often. Also: define safe spaces.

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.

Ah, yes. Every white person has the ability to move at the drop of a hat.

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.

Source?

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.

Which is a discussion which should probably be had no matter what race the victim is.

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.

Again: don't move the goal posts. Racism is a very simple yes or no thing: did or did someone not unfairly treat you because of your race?

I mean, we all (or at least all reasonable people) agree that on the institutionalized racism front, us whites have it good in most countries. However, it's still a dick move to say shit like "nuh-uh, not racism" to the parents of the kid who killed himself because he was bullied for being white.

 

[Thaluikhain]

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.

Really? Huh, not heard that...where do you live?

"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?"

No, but they clearly aren't generally going to spend most of their time doing that, which is what I understood that to mean.

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.

Ah, ok, must have missed that part.

I want to do a thought experiment with you and everyone else who thinks that privilege is genetics.

I never said it was. Privilege is about how groups of people are viewed by society. Now, sure, genetics plays a part, but only because society happens to view various races differently for various reasons.

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?

Anyone with a privilege is privileged. You might narrow that down to anyone with a privilege relevant in context.

The vast majority of people have some privileges, but not others. They are privileged, but privileges only apply in certain contexts.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

Anyone with a privilege is privileged. You might narrow that down to anyone with a privilege relevant in context.

The vast majority of people have some privileges, but not others. They are privileged, but privileges only apply in certain contexts.

Group privilege vs individual privilege.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Anyone with a privilege is privileged. You might narrow that down to anyone with a privilege relevant in context.

The vast majority of people have some privileges, but not others. They are privileged, but privileges only apply in certain contexts.

Group privilege vs individual privilege.

Er...I'm not sure what you mean here.

 

[solemnwar]

"Cracker" does not refer to the cracking of a whip. That's a folk etymology. "Cracker" is basically a ye olde times version of "white trash".

Spoiler: have a copy pasta

Southern U.S. derogatory term for "poor, white trash" (1766), probably an agent noun from crack (v.) in the sense "to boast" (as in not what it's cracked up to be). Compare Latin crepare "to rattle, crack, creak," with a secondary figurative sense of "boast of, prattle, make ado about."
I should explain to your Lordship what is meant by crackers; a name they have got from being great boasters; they are a lawless set of rascalls on the frontiers of Virginia, Maryland, the Carolinas and Georgia, who often change their places of abode. [1766, G. Cochrane]
But DARE compares corn-cracker "poor white farmer" (1835, U.S. Midwest colloquial). Especially of Georgians by 1808, though often extended to residents of northern Florida. Another name in mid-19c. use was sand-hiller "poor white in Georgia or South Carolina."
Not very essentially different is the condition of a class of people living in the pine-barrens nearest the coast [of South Carolina], as described to me by a rice-planter. They seldom have any meat, he said, except they steal hogs, which belong to the planters, or their negroes, and their chief diet is rice and milk. "They are small, gaunt, and cadaverous, and their skin is just the color of the sand-hills they live on. They are quite incapable of applying themselves steadily to any labor, and their habits are very much like those of the old Indians." [Frederick Law Olmsted, "A Journey in the Seaboard Slave States," 1856]

In regards to the thread topic... not really. It has no power or weight behind it. There's no systemic oppression and centuries of dehumanisation behind it. If someone calls me a "cracker" (which is fairly unlikely as I live in Canada) I'm not going to be reminded of that history, and of the very real racism and prejudice that actively inhibits my life. Because there isn't any, as I am a whitey white person of whiteness (someone once thought I looked native American though, which is hysterical). Most prejudice that affects me is because I'm a lady person, and we're definitely making better strides against that (for white women, anyways) than we are about racism.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Why do I sense a cultural 'tit for tat' cycling with a slight overlap occurring around all these political contrivances? Can't say i've ever heard the term and it certainly wouldn't insult me. I'm more concerned at how concerned people are that a treacherous word has arisen from the literate ashes to hurt our fragile sweet feelings.
Annnnnnyhow, cracker was a 90s british detective show. White guy. Pretty privilaged if I must say so myself. He seemed ok with the word. Something someone Coltrain?

 

[RJ 17]

To answer both questions, I suppose it depends on whether or not you think this guy is racist:


I'm pretty sure racism doesn't need to have anything to do with "the ability to oppress others." That certainly can be part of it, but it's much simpler than that, isn't it? I always thought racism was hating/resenting/wanting to kill/etc someone based on their race.

If that isn't racism as defined in the dictionary and thus people feel it's acceptable to defend those such as the guy in the video as "not being racist because he's a minority" then we clearly need a new word to describe such behavior/beliefs...

I suggest "Super Racism". :3

 

[Varrdy]

Ah-ah! You can't say "Cracker", because that's nasty! The politically-correct term is "Saltine-American".

Now being serious, racism can be directed at anyone, by anyone. It seems to be popular amongst wooly-minded pseudo-liberals to assert that minorities can't be racist and / or white people cannot be the victims of racism, which is untrue and somewhat offensive.

See also, "Women can't be sexist towards men"

 

[Piorn]

You can definitely be racist against anything.
I just don't take it personal if someone is racist against me.
Racism is like gambling, it's deeply rooted in the human psychology, and if you lack the education to circumvent the compulsions, then you become racist. This applies to all humans.
Racism is nothing to be angry about, it's something to pity.

 

[happyninja42]

Yes the word is derogatory, just like the N-word is derogatory when used by non-blacks. When the word is being used to convey a negative connotation about a person, based on their skin color, it's derogatory.

And yes you can be racist against white people. Though some will get into a semantic debate that the word "racist" means institutionalized prejudice, and thus since we live in a "white" society, you can't be "racist" against white people. But you can sure as hell be bigoted and prejudiced against white people simply because of their skin color. To me, the terms are interchangeable, but some people are very particular about it.

 

[Akjosch]

How come this life-saving advice video wasn't posted yet?


On a slightly more serious note, yeah, it looks like it's racist when applied to humans. Not like it matters much - word usage when choosing insults only says something about the speaker, after all, not about the targets.

 

[Abomination]

If cracker isn't racist even though it has heavy baggage with slavery then ****** isn't racist in spite of its heavy baggage with slavery.

Nobody who owned a slave in 19th century America lives to this day. Being a slave owner is considered a VERY immoral occupation and a negative reflection on one's character.

Might as well label someone a rapist... or a racist.

But hey, if I can call black folk ****** all I want then they can call white folk cracker all they want.

Either all racism is wrong or it's ALL debatable.

 

[Loop Stricken]

1) It's absolutely possible to be racist towards white people.

2) Don't know how I feel about 'cracker'. It's clearly not as bad as '******', because nobody says 'the c-word' for cracker. But is it even an insult? "Ah yes, remind me more about how people of my colour used to own other people, nya ha ha!"

I dunno, but then again I'm English.

 

[Loop Stricken]

1) It's absolutely possible to be racist towards white people.

2) Don't know how I feel about 'cracker'. It's clearly not as bad as '******', because nobody says 'the c-word' for cracker. But is it even an insult? "Ah yes, remind me more about how people of my colour used to own other people, nya ha ha!"

I dunno, but then again I'm English.

I demand an apology on behalf of your people, Briton. Some of us poor American children spent our childhood imagining crumpets, hearing tell of their mystical powers to hold butter, jam, and some form of cream. Finally, finally... we land on some small Atlantic isle inhabited by pale strangers, and it turns out THEY'RE JUST PANCAKES! BIG... dull PANCAKES!

Sorry... sorry... totally not bitter about that little childhood experience.

Point being, how do you feel about "Crumpet" as a derogatory term?

But, crumpets are significantly different to pancakes.

Spoiler: Aww yiss

As for 'crumpet' as a derogatory term, you'd have to ask an actual female about that.

 

[Mid Boss]

"And can one be racist against white people?"

Racism is the hate of someone based on their race. So yes you can be racist against white people. I very much experienced it first hand while living in the slums of Pittsburgh.

 

[Worgen]

Technically it is a racist term, but since white people pretty much run everything. It can't help but just feel quaint and silly.

 

[Lightspeaker]

1) It's absolutely possible to be racist towards white people.

2) Don't know how I feel about 'cracker'. It's clearly not as bad as '******', because nobody says 'the c-word' for cracker. But is it even an insult? "Ah yes, remind me more about how people of my colour used to own other people, nya ha ha!"

I dunno, but then again I'm English.

I demand an apology on behalf of your people, Briton. Some of us poor American children spent our childhood imagining crumpets, hearing tell of their mystical powers to hold butter, jam, and some form of cream. Finally, finally... we land on some small Atlantic isle inhabited by pale strangers, and it turns out THEY'RE JUST PANCAKES! BIG... dull PANCAKES!

Sorry... sorry... totally not bitter about that little childhood experience.

Point being, how do you feel about "Crumpet" as a derogatory term?

But, crumpets are significantly different to pancakes.

Spoiler: Aww yiss

As for 'crumpet' as a derogatory term, you'd have to ask an actual female about that.

No no... not in that sense, not to women... I mean in the way that I'm a "Cracker". You can be a "Crumpet". It adds a nice symmetry IMO... two relatively bland starches...

...And you can't fool me with that picture! Lies, all lies covered in butter!

As an English person I take enormous offence to your slights upon crumpets, sir. If they are bland to you that is because you are cooking them improperly!

Toasted. With melted cheese. Food fit for a king.

Although...you mention butter, jam, cream...are you sure you're not thinking of scones? I've never heard of anyone putting jam and cream onto crumpets. If you are going to insult scones I might actually have to challenge you to a duel.

 

[smartalec]

Can you be racist against white people...? Well... yeah.

I can grasp the idea that "it doesnt matter, it's not as harmful", and I can see why people would think that, but isn't that beside the point? The point is, if you buy into that, then you've let YOUR thinking be compromised. You've failed to understand yourself and your own thoughts. You've fallen off the Eightfold Path at the first step. You have left wisdom behind. You see reality not as it is, but how you believe it to be, or how you have been convinced it is.

Forget about what racial discrimination might be doing to someone else for a moment, consider what buying into it is doing to you. Screwing with your own understanding of the world. It's a bad habit.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Ladies. Ladies. ...How about a little sweet flair? I present to you, the one and only...

(See below post )