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

[AT God]

I'm not gonna bother with the second part of the question because that's just silly (interpret that how ever you will).

One thing I find interesting about cracker is a slur is that while it has absolutely no effect on me (I'm white), I do think that looking at the word itself, it is probably one of the more offensive words by meaning. That in no way means it is worse than other slurs, especially since it lacks the history of oppression that most slurs contain. But cracker has at least some origin as being related to slave owners cracking whips on slaves. Since that isn't a thing anymore, it is actually a very brutal thing to imply to someone. Its nonsensical like all slurs but as far as the term itself, the implication is the worst of any slur I am aware of, even though it is probably one of the weakest slurs.

Words are funny.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

Cracker refers to slave owners (crack of the whip).

I guess it's racist in that it's a racial term?

I was never really offended when people called me 'Beaner' and 'Jewbagel', but I guess it's a personal thing.

Agreed but isn't calling a white man today a slaver or well 'cracker' a bit inapropriate?

Kind of? I mean, a slave owner is in a position of power. Can that really be considered offensive? If anything it seems like anyone who'd call someone else 'Cracker' is kind of disrespecting themselves. Unless they're trying to inspire some feelings of white guilt?

I'm not saying minorities can't be racist, but I'm not sure cracker is a... bad term for lack of a better phrase.

Saying "you're in power" to someone isn't offensive. But saying "you're an asshole slave owner, inhuman bastard!" is. Lets be real, when someone calls you a cracker, they don't mean it like "you're in power", they mean it like you're inhuman, a bastard, a greedy asshole, abusive... add any kind of thing that describes a slave owner. When someone calls you a cracker, he calls you literally everything negative that is related to slave owner.

Captcha: history repeats itself
Is the captcha becoming sentient?

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Ok did not work at all...

Because I saw your original attempt, and I respect it.

Spoiler: What Xsjadoblayde wanted to show you

Ahah why yes, thankyou! I failed spectacularly at that attempt. Time for slinking off in shames

No shame now... only buns... Close your eyes now and dreeeeaaaaaam...

The buns shall cleanse the foul stench of shame. A soul shall be reborn anew, given their chance to atone. The prophecy. It shall be realised. But first, to the bakery!

 

[1stworlder]

"Nearly half of all victims of racially motivated murders in the last decade have been white, according to official figures released by the Home Office."

According to the UK census of 2011[footnote]http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/census/2011/index.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter[/footnote], 88% of the people in the UK are white. Thats disproportionately low, only proving my point.

Thank you thank you thank you for showing us liberal math. Your idea that 88% of the population being white means that not enough white people are being attacked by the 12% non white should illuminate your qualifications. This is oddly similar to US blacks being 13% of the population but committing over 1/2 of all murders, even with Hispanics like George Z counting as white.

San Francisco is as liberal as can be but they put Ferguson to shame for disparate impact. Blacks make up only 5% of SF but they commit the majority of crime including bashings. Blacks make up 8% of San Fran public school students but are 71% of public students arrested.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/african-american-top-the-list-of-students-arrested-at-sf-schools-but-only-make-up-8-percent-of-student-body/Content?oid=2920039

If equality existed Asian girls would be equal to black boys in violence and IQ, however 137 teachers in Atlanta got arrested for altering standardized tests that didn't even bring black scores up to Hispanic scores. If there is any possible connection between DNA & IQ it might explain why 1 out of 50 Asian males scores a perfect math SAT.
Chinatowns have historically been the poorest neighborhoods, but had lower crime rates than many white ones.(the UK mistakenly calls middle eastern & Pakis Asian)

The True Face of Political Correctness can be seen in the the 1700+ indigenous little white girls gang raped by 3rd world moslems in Rotherham UK. It took over a decade for the cops to admit that they ignored the crimes because they are afraid to be called racist, if cops won't do anything to help little white girls would they do anything for you? Same thing happened with the 3 beheaded gay neighbors of the Boston Marathon moslems, it was Pam Geller that looked back at their history and saw that a year before they blew into the news, 3 neighbors got beheaded and no one was unPC enough to ask "Who beheads gays?"

 

[FirstNameLastName]

1) Yes it's racist, but no one really cares about it, not even white people.

2) Yes, anyone can be racist towards any race, unless you use the (incorrect) definition that conveniently makes it the exclusive domain of white people perpetrated against non-whites. And no, I make no apologies for calling this redefinition of the word a complete load of bullshit. The current definition is perfectly fine the way it is. If you want to talk about the dominant form of racism in a society, then institutional racism is a good word for it. If you have any quibbles with that word, then you can always coin another one that fits the bill even better. Hell, dominant racism seems an adequate term, even considering I just plucked it from this post.

 

[Areloch]

Cracker refers to slave owners (crack of the whip).

I guess it's racist in that it's a racial term?

I was never really offended when people called me 'Beaner' and 'Jewbagel', but I guess it's a personal thing.

Agreed but isn't calling a white man today a slaver or well 'cracker' a bit inapropriate?

Kind of? I mean, a slave owner is in a position of power. Can that really be considered offensive? If anything it seems like anyone who'd call someone else 'Cracker' is kind of disrespecting themselves. Unless they're trying to inspire some feelings of white guilt?

I'm not saying minorities can't be racist, but I'm not sure cracker is a... bad term for lack of a better phrase.

Saying "you're in power" to someone isn't offensive. But saying "you're an asshole slave owner, inhuman bastard!" is. Lets be real, when someone calls you a cracker, they don't mean it like "you're in power", they mean it like you're inhuman, a bastard, a greedy asshole, abusive... add any kind of thing that describes a slave owner. When someone calls you a cracker, he calls you literally everything negative that is related to slave owner.

Captcha: history repeats itself
Is the captcha becoming sentient?

That line of thinking really makes me question how some people operate when it comes to language and interaction.

"Oh sure, he's equating you to a horrible person in the past that used to own and abuse people for upaid labor. But that person was in CHARGE, so how is it actually an insult?".

It boggles my mind.

 

[1stworlder]

1) It is, 2) Of course you can.

He would be enslaved in Roman or Greek empires. Even a billionaires son Michael Clark Rockefeller ended up being eaten by cannibals in this century just for being at the wrong place. George Washington was the richest man of his day but he got sick several times on bad water. One of Washington's prize possessions was an ice-cream maker but he most likely ate less ice cream during his entire lifetime than someone on welfare ate by ate 10. The last king of Rwanda lives in Virginia getting better free healthcare than you can buy in his homeland.
http://reason.com/24-7/2013/04/03/former-rwandan-king-living-on-public-ass

 

[OldNewNewOld]

Cracker refers to slave owners (crack of the whip).

I guess it's racist in that it's a racial term?

I was never really offended when people called me 'Beaner' and 'Jewbagel', but I guess it's a personal thing.

Agreed but isn't calling a white man today a slaver or well 'cracker' a bit inapropriate?

Kind of? I mean, a slave owner is in a position of power. Can that really be considered offensive? If anything it seems like anyone who'd call someone else 'Cracker' is kind of disrespecting themselves. Unless they're trying to inspire some feelings of white guilt?

I'm not saying minorities can't be racist, but I'm not sure cracker is a... bad term for lack of a better phrase.

Saying "you're in power" to someone isn't offensive. But saying "you're an asshole slave owner, inhuman bastard!" is. Lets be real, when someone calls you a cracker, they don't mean it like "you're in power", they mean it like you're inhuman, a bastard, a greedy asshole, abusive... add any kind of thing that describes a slave owner. When someone calls you a cracker, he calls you literally everything negative that is related to slave owner.

Captcha: history repeats itself
Is the captcha becoming sentient?

That line of thinking really makes me question how some people operate when it comes to language and interaction.

"Oh sure, he's equating you to a horrible person in the past that used to own and abuse people for upaid labor. But that person was in CHARGE, so how is it actually an insult?".

It boggles my mind.

I don't understand it either. They are basically saying it's not insulting to compare someone to Hitler because Hitler had power. "No, no, it's okay, Hitler was in charge so I didn't insult you when I went full Godwin's law." "No, the KKK had a lot of power, so I wasn't racist when I said you're literally KKK!"

 

[Areloch]

Cracker refers to slave owners (crack of the whip).

I guess it's racist in that it's a racial term?

I was never really offended when people called me 'Beaner' and 'Jewbagel', but I guess it's a personal thing.

Agreed but isn't calling a white man today a slaver or well 'cracker' a bit inapropriate?

Kind of? I mean, a slave owner is in a position of power. Can that really be considered offensive? If anything it seems like anyone who'd call someone else 'Cracker' is kind of disrespecting themselves. Unless they're trying to inspire some feelings of white guilt?

I'm not saying minorities can't be racist, but I'm not sure cracker is a... bad term for lack of a better phrase.

Saying "you're in power" to someone isn't offensive. But saying "you're an asshole slave owner, inhuman bastard!" is. Lets be real, when someone calls you a cracker, they don't mean it like "you're in power", they mean it like you're inhuman, a bastard, a greedy asshole, abusive... add any kind of thing that describes a slave owner. When someone calls you a cracker, he calls you literally everything negative that is related to slave owner.

Captcha: history repeats itself
Is the captcha becoming sentient?

That line of thinking really makes me question how some people operate when it comes to language and interaction.

"Oh sure, he's equating you to a horrible person in the past that used to own and abuse people for upaid labor. But that person was in CHARGE, so how is it actually an insult?".

It boggles my mind.

I don't understand it either. They are basically saying it's not insulting to compare someone to Hitler because Hitler had power. "No, no, it's okay, Hitler was in charge so I didn't insult you when I went full Godwin's law." "No, the KKK had a lot of power, so I wasn't racist when I said you're literally KKK!"

Yeah. The Hitler/Nazi comparison popped into my head, but I avoided it because I didn't want to pull Godwin's law, haha.

But yeah, if that logic flies, then surely other permutations of the same logic should apply to other derogatory terms.

"Oh sure, I called you a ******, but it's Ok because black people have an incredible, long-reaching cultural history and overcame the hardships of an oppressive society to get where they are today!"

Either we get to do that to everything, or a derogatory term is a derogatory term. One doesn't get to change the meaning of words when it's convenient to the- *sees posts about how racism now means being racist + having power*

....dang it.

 

[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.

Yes white people run africa, china, india, south america

what...they don't? Oh well then your comment must be f****g stupid.



I don't care for the word cracker or ******. But if one is racist then the other is also racist. Thats how an equal society works.
For me using a word in a derogatory and/or wanting to put someone down is part of racism. This whole power and privilege bullshit is an excuse that racists make to be racist. The KKK also don't see themselves as racist and also use mental gymnastics to excuse their vile behaviour.
Does history teach us NOTHING?

Calm down and think before you speak, then you might make sense.

 

[Nieroshai]

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.

 

[Batou667]

I've never liked the revisionist liberal suggestion that racism is only "real" racism if it stems from a place of power and directed at the historically disenfranchised; anything else is "only" racially-motivated prejudice, which is for some reason less problematic. That's a definition that flies in the face of the commonsense, layperson's understanding of the word. Is somebody being treated differently, usually worse, because of their race? Then it's racism.

A bit like certain legal definitions that mean a woman can never technically rape a man, only sexually assault him, it enshrines a certain group as being more likely to be oppressed/marginalised - because that's how we've decided to define it. It skews the figures and makes statistics and even the honest pursuit of equality subordinate to identity politics.

As for "cracker" - no, it doesn't have the same weight of history behind it as "******" does, but that doesn't mean it can't be weaponised. It's contextual, just like how "******" can be a friendly greeting in some contexts. Are we really going to sit down and agonise over which racial epithet is the worst? Where would "*****" fit in the hierarchy? Wait, what about "Kike"? Oh, come on, we all have better things to be spending our time on, surely. This isn't the Oppression Olympics; there are no medals.

 

[C14N]

Technically it is racist but I would openly call any fellow white person who gets their panties up in a bunch about it a whiney little *****. There's no force behind the word, no matter how much you try to put behind it. Making the case that it's offensive is like on a similar level of ridiculousness to making the case that "gosh" or "darn" are very strong swear words. You don't have to be a member of a subjugated race to experience some form of racism but you kind of do for the racism to actually have any real power.

 

[Olas]

I guess if people take offense to it then it's a slur. I mean, it's not like there's some formal list of words that are or aren't slurs, it's just a cultural thing. Thus, if you can tolerate being called a word then it no longer becomes a slur for you.

I don't really care if people call me a cracker, since the term is a reference to slave ownership, which neither I nor any of my ancestors took part in.

 

[Sight Unseen]

Yes, it's a racist term. Yes people CAN be racist against white people. No, racism has nothing to do with power or oppression (same with sexism, ableism or any other ism they make up)

No, as a white person I do not personally give a shit about being called cracker (not that I ever have been...)

 

[ForumSafari]

Wait a minute if 88% of the population is white then in a perfect world wouldn't 88% of the racial hate crimes be coming FROM white people? The fact that are more than half the victims means proportionately they have it harder than everyone else.

Not really, the problem is that people mentally model racism as 'white man calls black man a ******' but the truth is that a lot of racism is brown on brown, it turns out that a lot of the peoples of the world hate each other regardless of skin colour.

EDIT: Whoops my bad, yes you're right, I thought it was perpetrators and not victims.

 

[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!?

 

[gunny1993]

Who gives a fuck, we have all the money and power

 

[Someone Depressing]

It's derogatory against white people and you can be racist against white people, but that racism itself has no meaning.