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

[BodomBeachChild]

Yes it is. It's not very offensive though. I prefer the term honky myself lol

 

[Tono Makt]

At least one academic definition of racism defines it as the system of beliefs and actions which was created by Europeans and people of European descent in the America's to justify the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the continued enslavement of people of African descent. So from this academic point of view, only whites can be racist, and only against people of African descent who were brought to the Americas via the trans-Atlantic slave trade. No one else can be racist.

Colloquially, we tend to use the term "racism" as a more emotionally loaded way of saying "prejudice", and as a more specific way of saying it. Racists are prejudiced against people not of their race, or of people belonging to certain races. (Similar to Homophobia, Antisemitism and Misogyny - all words which describe specific forms of prejudice.) When you say "That guy is prejudiced!", you need a follow up question "Against what?" because it could be just about anything. Prejudiced against blacks. Against women. Against homosexuals. Against dogs. Against pets. Against meat-eaters. Against people who drive cars. Etc. When you say "That guy's a racist!", people know that it's an ethnic/racial prejudice, against people, and against people don't look like him. Whole lot of information from one word combined with a whole lot of emotion.

So you get arguments which are at best, honest arguments between two sets of people who are passionately arguing about different topics while using the same terminology. At worst, people cynically using the difference between an academic definition and the colloquial definition to manipulate the argument for their own ends.

That being said, as I've been caught too often by people being disingenuous with their arguments, I've tried to stop saying that someone is racist and said they were prejudiced against specific other races or ethnicities. The only time I use the word racism is in discussions like this, or when I don't edit my post properly and I forget to go back and change "racist" to "prejudiced". So can blacks be racist against whites? They can most certainly be prejudiced against whites. [footnote]I know, I deserve to be smacked for that obvious sidestepping the question.[/footnote]

I think a large part of these discussions forgets to mention geography as well. In America, it's easier for whites to be prejudiced against blacks. You take a white guy and toss them into Nigeria, or Egypt, or Japan, or Turkey, or Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan? Not so easy for the white guy to be prejudiced against non-whites. Also you'll find a hell of a lot of anti-white prejudice in those nations as whites are the extreme minority. We aren't the Top Dog everywhere in the world - just in the West. You drop most of us off in another nation, particularly a non-European nation... and you're likely to find out pretty fast that you can say "They can't be racists! This definition proves it!" all you like, when you're on the other side of the angry mob it really doesn't matter what you call it - by any name it's a horrible thing.

I have to ask, though, when and why was this definition created? Was it, like the "racism=prejudice+power" argument, created recently because racism against white people does happen? As for using "prejudiced" instead of "racist," are you going to argue the same for sexism, culturalism, ageism? Prejudice is the broad concept, racism is the specific.

Don't know when and why it was created; I first heard it in 2012, when I went back to school for a year. During a Human Geography course (basically the interaction of people on a geographic level. Actually has the potential to be useful, but I digress) it was mentioned that "Racism was created in the 16th century to excuse the slave trade", and there were a few articles that we had to read and discuss for the class that made the argument. The Power + Prejudice wasn't involved, but it seems to be a logical extension of that definition of racism and the thinking that seems to go into it.

And re prejudice, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Sexism, culturalism, ageism, racism, homophobia, etc., are all specific and emotionally loaded terms for prejudice. It's more than simply Broad vs Specific - "Racist" is not only seen as wrong, it's seen as evil, abhorrent and willfully ignorant. To call someone a racist, or say they're acting like a racist, is to throw not only the specifics of "You are being prejudiced against a particular race that is not your own.", but to say "You are an evil and disgusting excuse for a human being and you have no excuse for your behaviour, thoughts and actions, which are prejudiced against a race that is not your own." Sexism, Homophobia and Antisemitism also have similar negative baggage beyond simply pointing out the specific form of prejudice.

And I wonder if we're aggravating this situation by using these terms so often. To be called one of these things is essentially to be goaded into a fight. And that's just not conducive to changing the behaviour; either the person who is behaving in a prejudiced manner "wins", and goes on behaving that way, or they "lose", and they come back for revenge or a "Best out of 3" fight, without actually examining the reasons they were called out in the first place. And the person making the accusation rarely is actually looking to change the behaviour for the sake of changing a poor behaviour, but to be victorious over something evil.

So at least when I say someone is prejudiced, there's the opening line of dialogue where I have to explain what I mean by that. And there is, in my opinion, a better chance that the dialogue will continue and an argument or a fight won't start.

 

[irishda]

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?

Find me a black on white hate crime that didn't result in arrests.

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.

I'm skipping through most of the rest (except for the source one, because c'mon man, really?) to get to the crux of it here. Racism at it's most basic level is simple. Someone treats you unfairly because of your race, that's racism. Yes. Where we diverge is in the context beyond that. A kid was bullied for being white and committed suicide. What should be done about that? That might be racism but what do you want to do?

That's why so many save the term "racism" as a shorthand for "institutionalized racism", or the old "prejudice v. racism" debate, because what do you do against non-institutionalized? People will be punished for committing wrongs on others when it is not socially sanctioned. So what's the problem that needs to be addressed?

You'll have to forgive my cynicism that discussions such as this are really so innocuous as "but white people can experience wrong too" when I've seen time and time again discussions of institutionalized racism derailed into a pointless argument of "well white people experience racism too!" There's a growing trend of "White men have it worse than everyone" and this thread seems like just the tip of the iceberg for it

 

[SecondPrize]

Yes you can be racist to white folk. If you have to construct a definition of the term designed to prove your're not a racist, then you're a racist and an asshole to boot.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

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?

Find me a black on white hate crime that didn't result in arrests.

That's not how these things work. I'm not asking for a data point, I'm asking for statistics. Show me that statistically black on white crime is taken more serious than the other way around.

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.

I'm skipping through most of the rest (except for the source one, because c'mon man, really?) to get to the crux of it here. Racism at it's most basic level is simple. Someone treats you unfairly because of your race, that's racism. Yes. Where we diverge is in the context beyond that. A kid was bullied for being white and committed suicide. What should be done about that? That might be racism but what do you want to do?

I'd like for both sides to be intellectually honest and acknowledge that that is racism. Because that's basically what this thread started with: calling someone a cracker is racist. Sure, it's a fairly harmless form of racism, but it's really annoying when the goal posts are moved and people argue that it isn't racist since it's not institutionalized racism.

That's why so many save the term "racism" as a shorthand for "institutionalized racism", or the old "prejudice v. racism" debate, because what do you do against non-institutionalized? People will be punished for committing wrongs on others when it is not socially sanctioned. So what's the problem that needs to be addressed?

Again: there's no systematic problem that needs to be addressed, apart from maybe that the idea that 'can't be racist against whites' is spreading (Bahar Mustafa and other idiots actually taking this shit offline and all that jazz). For me, it's more a matter of keeping definitions clean and clear.

You'll have to forgive my cynicism that discussions such as this are really so innocuous as "but white people can experience wrong too" when I've seen time and time again discussions of institutionalized racism derailed into a pointless argument of "well white people experience racism too!"

You know what would really help in those discussions? Starting out with 'institutionalized racism' instead of saying 'racism'.

There's a growing trend of "White men have it worse than everyone" and this thread seems like just the tip of the iceberg for it

I don't see that at all in this thread. Show me where people say that.

 

[L. Declis]

Yes, cracker is a term based on race; it is racist. Is it bad? Well, it fosters a sense of hatred, so yes.

Can you be racist towards white people? Yes. There are many areas of the world white people cannot go to; right now in Africa, white people are being murdered for being white. That's racist. I get racist comments from Chinese people; that's also racist. What a silly question; the only people who think otherwise are those SJW's who complain when the a polish game made in Poland set in Polish history doesn't have enough black people, when Poland has only had 3 slaves ever, and was often enslaved.

 

[lacktheknack]

Of course it is. It means "whip-cracker". I don't like being tied with slave-drivers, thankyouverymuch.

But of course... does it matter what I want and don't want? If someone calls me a cracker, I'll die slightly inside and life will carry on.

 

[Brown_Coat117]

The reason that cracker has no power of weight as people here are saying is because we as a society have chosen to not give it the power that other groups have chosen to give other racial insults. So yes it is racist but offence is always taken, never given, and the vast majority of white people simply choose not to take offence.

As far as the question as to whether you can be racist to whites, why is this even a question. Racism is discrimination based on race, the only reason people try to bring power into the mix is so they can be a racist POS and not have to own up to the fact that that is what they are being.

 

[Godhead]

It depends on the context, but normally when attempted to be used in a derogatory way it's just too damn funny to get offended by.

 

[Steve Waltz]

I think white people should adopt it. Like the black people adopted ******.

I'd love to walk up to a group of my friends and announce hows it going crackers!?

That would be oppressive and racist of white people; they?d be stealing a word that only minorities use.

Of course I?m joking, but I warn you: If someone makes a hashtag promoting that whites should adopt the word ?cracker,? some ridiculous fools will call it out as racist on Facebook and Twitter.

 

[verdant monkai]

I think white people should adopt it. Like the black people adopted ******.

I'd love to walk up to a group of my friends and announce hows it going crackers!?

That would be oppressive and racist of white people; they?d be stealing a word that only minorities use.

Of course I?m joking, but I warn you: If someone makes a hashtag promoting that whites should adopt the word ?cracker,? some ridiculous fools will call it out as racist on Facebook and Twitter.

Well I don't have twitter so the ball's in your court Steve.

I'm pretty sure everything you do as a white person is viewed as oppressive nowadays, so we may as well have a modern catchphrase for it.

 

[Reasonable Atheist]

Someone called me cracker once, but i remained calm confident and collected, so as to continue controlling the land.

 

[Politrukk]

It depends on the context, but normally when attempted to be used in a derogatory way it's just too damn funny to get offended by.

I wonder what changes that context?

 

[carnex]

It depends on the context, but normally when attempted to be used in a derogatory way it's just too damn funny to get offended by.

I wonder what changes that context?

Give it enough time for people to start triggering "racial slur" idea when they hear the word and it will start offending people much, much more.

Slur is as bad as person takes it to the heart. Many people you can call by any name and they don't give a damn until someone persuades them that being told that or being called that somehow devaluates them in some manner. Then they take offense. So if you call a black person, čamuga, for example (word in Serbian specifically coined for blacks, especially those perceived as tribal but more or less applied to any and all blacks. Has no other meaning or similarities to other Serbian words.) vast majority won't get offended. They won't care.

Important thing to understand and really take to heart is that if someone is being derogatory to you, it shouldn't change how you perceive yourself. Being derogatory is not constructive or instructive in any positive way imaginable.

 

[Gauntlets28]

Yeah, it's derogatory and probably yeah racist. Technically. Tbh it's always sounded way too stupid a term to be actually offensive though.

 

[runic knight]

Yes it is racist. It is a negative slur directed at someone because of their race, thus it is by definition racist.

No, it doesn't matter if it is directed at a person in a position of power. No it does not matter if people do not take offense at it. No it does not matter if it does not have the history of violence or hostility associated with the use of it.

The word is racist because it is making reference of their race in a negative fashion solely because of their race.

 

[BarrelsOfDouche]

I'm not even sure there's a solid unified theory on what "race" really is. Seeing how so many people hold other ethnic groups to different standards, it's hard to understand if there are such things.

Americans, for instance, are seemingly revolted at the notion of slavery. For the most part, they still condone it as long as it's not in their own backyard. But that's not the kind of caring that sells in America, where they are removed from the problem. It's selective ignorance that nobody is being forced to confront, or even acknowledge.

As for that dude's comments...it's hard to know whether or not we're dealing with trolling, so I'm hesitant to take it seriously.

I do seem to remember from some books I read in school about something like this. There were some people who some other people considered, somehow, less than human and yet "all powerful" and "manipulative" at the same time. Some folks who apparently ruled the world, yet seemed unable to help themselves after 9 million or so of them took a train ride to nowhere and practically disappeared off the face of an entire continent. As I seem to remember it, it ended with some jerk killing himself and a bunch of other folks being vaporized.

 

[dystopiaINC]

Its a derogatory term towards white people, but like Honky its not one i've heard outside of a Dirty Harry movies and other 70's and 80' cinema.

I have heard it a couple times in passing, the intresting insult I had hurled at me once was "Pinky" but only once.

 

[Dango]

Yeah probably but it's also kind of hilarious and also hard to say without some degree of self-awareness.

 

[zumbledum]

well i guess its technically not actually racist because not all slavers where white , but its use probably is as ive never seen a black person called it.

but yes its definitely derogatory and yes you can be racist to white people. its called being pro active