On the use of the term "Cracka"

[Dialectic]

This is a discussion which could actually quite go into a lot detail, but I'll be brief.

Some have criticized us of hypocrisy: we will not allow racial slurs against Blacks, Hispanics, Indians, Natives, etc., but we somehow allow a word like "Cracker" or "Cracka" to get through (along with Asian slurs, but we're re-claiming that shit, as the saying goes).

Quite frankly, "cracker" or "cracka" is not hateful. White people use it jokingly, and they don't mind when others do. They regularly make the Khan character on King of the Hill use it, and it's funny.

It doesn't have connotations of slavery, oppression, lynching, indentured servitude, desexualization, hypersexualization, etc. It, along with a term like "redneck" and "hick" is mildly and amusingly derogatory, nothing more. We regard it in the same light as "idiot," "asshole," "fucker," and other assorted insults, only this one specifically means "White idiot," "White asshole," "White fucker," etc.

The entire Cracka-Chasing Bitch article was tongue-in-cheek. It was not meant to become a hateful slur. Tojo took an amusing and entertaining stance on it, and let's not forget it was applied ONLY to women whose online personas EXCLUSIVELY CHASED non-Asian men. It was also of course meant to insult the men would would go out with a woman like that.

Many of you have taken the ENTIRE article the wrong way, and decided to use the term to insult any individual involved in IR, and many of you have chosen THIS as your point of bonding with the 44 "ideals." Both are grossly perverted and fucked-up stances, which will not be tolerated in the public forums.

[ZhuBaJie]

my opinion is that it's a racial slur either way, and that if 44s want to gain more credibility and attract more intelligent conversations, i suggest the usage of this word be discouraged.

i understand that it doesn't carry connotations of oppression, but only white people can decide whether or not the word is insulting, sort of like how Sarah Silverman is in no position to decide that using "chink" in her joke is only harmless humour.

but hey, it's only my opinion. feel free to run the forum in whatever way you deem appropriate.

(in case anybody was wondering - yes, i was only saying "coon" to get my point across.)

[Dialectic]

Well Angi and Infamous Grouse, two very bright White people, seem not to mind. Neither does Worldview, actually. And as I said, watch King of the Hill!

[Taliesin Stormheller]

If the resident white folks don't get offended, then I say we keep 'Cracka'.

[ZhuBaJie]

Well Angi and Infamous Grouse, two very bright White people, seem not to mind. Neither does Worldview, actually. And as I said, watch King of the Hill!

hey there are Asian people out there making "ching chong" sounds around their white friends thinking it's funny, too.

"watch King of the Hill"? why would i think that was funny if i don't think it's funny that all these comedians use "chink" and say it's just harmless humour? or how about Shaq doing "ching chong" sounds and saying he was just trying to be funny? it's really the same thing, you know. the word is not a neutral term in popular vernacular to refer to white people. it is a term used to either make fun of or demean white people.

[generaltojo]

double standard
n.
A set of principles permitting greater opportunity or liberty to one than to another.

This is, of course, assuming that all things are equal.


Which they are not.

44 represents a minority. An oppressed minority with very real, very valid issues. A minority that is denied the opportunity and liberty that is deserved to them.

And that makes us angry.

The anger may not be productive, but it is also very real, and very valid. Terms like "cracker" arise. It may not be right, but it is PART OF THE FUCKING PROCESS. Of empowering ourselves, of recapturing what we damn well deserve.

A process is rarely perfect. In fact, it is always fraught with flaws reflecting those in the process, on the journey towards something greater.

ACCEPT THOSE FLAWS AS PART OF THE PROCESS. AND LEARN FROM THEM.

Indeed, I look forward to the day when such anger is no longer needed, such terms can be dispensed with.

THIS IS NOT THE DAY.

No excuses. The term is out there. The term is part of 44. Our cause is right and just. It is what it is. Deal with it.

[generaltojo]

hey there are Asian people out there making "ching chong" sounds around their white friends thinking it's funny, too.

"watch King of the Hill"? why would i think that was funny if i don't think it's funny that all these comedians use "chink" and say it's just harmless humour? or how about Shaq doing "ching chong" sounds and saying he was just trying to be funny? it's really the same thing, you know. the word is not a neutral term in popular vernacular to refer to white people. it is a term used to either make fun of or demean white people.

ZBJ, spare us your sanctimonious apologism. As if your worldview (pun partially intended) is more valid or just than anyone elses. Your posts have obviously proved otherwise.

Don't you dare play your hypocrisy card, because you're just playing politics based on whatever beef you have with this board or the people on it. You're as transparent as a piece of fucking saran wrap. Let it the fuck go.

[ZhuBaJie]

The anger may not be productive, but it is also very real, and very valid. Terms like "cracker" arise. It may not be right, but it is PART OF THE FUCKING PROCESS. Of empowering ourselves, of recapturing what we damn well deserve.

using the term "cracker" is "part of the fucking process" of empowering ourselves?

oh please.

that term doesn't give you any power over anybody, and it doesn't give you any more power over yourself.

[generaltojo]

well i won't apologize if i disagree I just don't like the term.

when someone says cracka, there gonna think of a white person. That person is me, but am I really a cracka? if i'm a cracka then your a gook. so i prefer to be just a man, and you are a man too.

You are only a "cracker" if you prove to be one - if you are racist, if you disrespect me because of my race.

The term "gook" is used regardless if the "gook" in question respects or disrespects someone else. It exists merely because the "gook" in question exists, because of his race. It's, quite bluntly, used universally (even to apply to Asians who aren't even fucking Korean or Vietnamese, for Christs sake.)

Now, does that sound fair? It sure is hell ain't.

[generaltojo]

The anger may not be productive, but it is also very real, and very valid. Terms like "cracker" arise. It may not be right, but it is PART OF THE FUCKING PROCESS. Of empowering ourselves, of recapturing what we damn well deserve.

using the term "cracker" is "part of the fucking process" of empowering ourselves?

oh please.

that term doesn't give you any power over anybody, and it doesn't give you any more power over yourself.

Yeah, tell that to African Americans and their movement towards equality - indeed, becoming human in the eyes of America. I'm sure they would have gone far without their anger, if they were all Uncle Tom cool. :roll: Read up on your history.

It's not about power. It's about EMPOWERMENT. Jesus, if you don't know the difference between the two, then what the fuck are you doing here? Just picking fights with people on a goddamn message board?

And the process is just that - A PROCESS. It's not fucking perfect, it's flawed, and it never professed to be pie in the sky perfect or noble. The only people who criticize that - the imperfections of process towards a noble goal - are those who are outside of it. Are you outside of it? I guess you think you're better than the rest of us, here?

[ZhuBaJie]

hey there are Asian people out there making "ching chong" sounds around their white friends thinking it's funny, too.

"watch King of the Hill"? why would i think that was funny if i don't think it's funny that all these comedians use "chink" and say it's just harmless humour? or how about Shaq doing "ching chong" sounds and saying he was just trying to be funny? it's really the same thing, you know. the word is not a neutral term in popular vernacular to refer to white people. it is a term used to either make fun of or demean white people.

ZBJ, spare us your sanctimonious apologism.

likewise, you can spare us your dimwitted self-righteous zealousness.

in fact, read your own posts. you're the one that is being apologetic to justify the use of the word "cracker" - that its usage is justified because we're minorities and that it "empowers" us.

Don't you dare play your hypocrisy card, because you're just playing politics based on whatever beef you have with this board or the people on it. You're as transparent as a piece of fucking saran wrap.

ah yes. the good old method of counter-argument called "attack the person if you can't attack the argument".

Let it the fuck go.

Dialectic invited discussion on this, so i'm discussing. like i said before, it's just my opinion and nobody has to take it.

[ZhuBaJie]

It's not about power. It's about EMPOWERMENT. Jesus, if you don't know the difference between the two, then what the fuck are you doing here? Just picking fights with people on a goddamn message board?

no offense, but are you really that dumb? to empower means to invest or equip someone with power. when civil rights leaders or feminist leaders talk about empowerment, they are talking about investing minorities or women with the power to decide their own fate, and to be equal to white men.

[generaltojo]

It's about EMPOWERMENT

I think there is a better way to empower yourself. Dismiss racism and dismiss those that are racist. Name calling doesn't do much as we can tell from this forum (yeah i learned)

Believe me, I'm learning too. I've never professed to be perfect.

Racism is there. Racism in reaction to racism is there, too. It's not going to change overnight. The only reasonable thing to do is to accept it for what it is, learn about it, learn from it, and grow.

One thing I hate about liberalism is its paternalism. "It's wrong, so lets outlaw it." It doesn't trust people to find things out for themselves, to make mistakes and learn from them.

Simply saying "racism of all forms is wrong, and therefore should be outlawed" doesn't change a single blessed thing. It's killing the symptoms without examining the source. And the source of many things is not pretty, and certainly not all right or correct. That's all I'm saying.

[ZhuBaJie]

And the process is just that - A PROCESS. It's not fucking perfect, it's flawed, and it never professed to be pie in the sky perfect or noble. The only people who criticize that - the imperfections of process towards a noble goal - are those who are outside of it. Are you outside of it? I guess you think you're better than the rest of us, here?

great. why don't we go and gun us down some crackers while we're at it. hey, the process is imperfect, right?

of course the "process" is flawed. but nobody said it can't be better and using racial slurs toward white people doesn't do anything to empower ourselves. advocating political activism, encouraging people to speak out about inequalities, and striving for economic success - that's empowerment.

[generaltojo]

It's not about power. It's about EMPOWERMENT. Jesus, if you don't know the difference between the two, then what the fuck are you doing here? Just picking fights with people on a goddamn message board?

no offense, but are you really that dumb? to empower means to invest or equip someone with power. when civil rights leaders or feminist leaders talk about empowerment, they are talking about investing minorities or women with the power to decide their own fate, and to be equal to white men.

Disagree. Power is something you wield over someone else, or have wielded over you. Your assessment of empowerment I agree with - reality is people start wielding power over people through the process of empowerment, and that causes a whole host of problems. It's a tricky proposition in any case.

[generaltojo]

And the process is just that - A PROCESS. It's not fucking perfect, it's flawed, and it never professed to be pie in the sky perfect or noble. The only people who criticize that - the imperfections of process towards a noble goal - are those who are outside of it. Are you outside of it? I guess you think you're better than the rest of us, here?

great. why don't we go and gun us down some crackers while we're at it. hey, the process is imperfect, right?

Hyperbole. Always an effective tool in debate.

of course the "process" is flawed. but nobody said it can't be better and using racial slurs toward white people doesn't do anything to empower ourselves. advocating political activism, encouraging people to speak out about inequalities, and striving for economic success - that's empowerment.

I'm not disagreeing with you, here. I just want to make sure the process is inclusive of all who at the very least care about empowerment. And that includes the racists or the "crazies" as some refer to on here.

The difference, I think, is standards. You have a high bar set - if you don't meet that bar, you're garbage. My bar is lower. What can I say, I feel for those who are flawed, because I'm flawed myself. That's one of the reasons why I think the K-room is important.

I don't think I'm better than anyone else - or at least I try to think that. And I despise those who lord over people - who want or think they have power over others - because they're elitist and they're only looking out for themselves. That sure ain't empowerment - that's power.

[generaltojo]

why don't you just call racists racists?

The question, I think, is "is all racism equal?"

You're under the impression that it is. I don't think it is at all.

Now, does that sound fair? It sure is hell ain't.

neither is calling people cracka, cuz the first thing that pops into people head is a white dude. thats not fair either in my opinion.

Never been a fan of playing the "which is worse" game, but the fact that it can be played indicates that there must be a gross inequity, somewhere.

Look at it this way:
- People should be treated as individuals, but they are not.
- As such, groups have power. The group with the most power are white folk. The group with the least are minority groups (race included.)
- Minority groups fight to empower themselves. The process is messy.
- Racism is part of this messiness. It's not right, but it's there, and that shouldn't be denied, ignored, or derided based on a standard afforded to you based on privilege.

The important thing is to examine why it's there. There's a reason for it. It's not enough to say - "but it's not fair to me as a white person," because quite frankly, this is not about you. It's not your story. It's ours. And I resent that you're trying to make it about you - especially in a place - this site - where we're trying to get a grip on being equal, being normal. To take that away, to make it all about you and your experiences and how you feel is incredibly selfish. Becuase you have so many channels to tell your story. 44 is one of the few we got.

[generaltojo]

likewise, you can spare us your dimwitted self-righteous zealousness.

Maybe we should dispense with the insults. I will if you will. I'm sorry - we all have our lapses in discipline.

in fact, read your own posts. you're the one that is being apologetic to justify the use of the word "cracker" - that its usage is justified because we're minorities and that it "empowers" us.

I never, ever justified it. I only accepted that it was there - that there is a valid reason for it being there. I even called it flawed, I never justified it.

Once again, paternalism is not the answer. "It's wrong, so outlaw it." Pointless, and it gives no credit to an individual for making mistakes and finding their own way. Not to mention it lacks compassion.

I'm no saint here, I just feel for people slipping through the cracks, I really do. In your posts, I find some stuff that is admirable - this confidence, this forward movement, this quest for power that could be beneficial for some of us. But not all. I fear you're letting what you consider "the weak" slip through the cracks. I want very much for these people to advance with us, because even though they're angry, (currently) racist, and dubbed "crazy," there's a reason for all that, a story, and it's just as valid as yours and mine... and perhaps even more compelling. Lots of good stories to be told, to learn from.


Dialectic invited discussion on this, so i'm discussing. like i said before, it's just my opinion and nobody has to take it.

And it is welcomed, if you welcome others.

[Dialectic]

Oh ZBJ, why you gotta be like that? Your line about "why don't we go out and gun down some crackas while we're at it?"

That style of "argument" accomplished nothing. None of us is advocating that, and all you're doing is sarcastically misrepresenting our position and then viciously attacking it. Which is what all the other crazy motherfuckers do here. No love for the haters.

[Dialectic]

Oh and on another note, Chris Rock uses it too on his internatonally televised routines on the Comedy Channel, and it's hilarious. He jokes about how old Black folk are the most racist people in the world, and then does an impression, spittin' out "Cracka-Ass Cracka!!"

So again, a couple points:

1) Yep, it's mildly derogatory. As are many things we say here (and remember, we do insult everyone, and that matters!)

2) It was deemed appropriate by the White folk who run the networks (and the ones who write and produce and distribute and air King of the Hill), and it has a completely different effect than joking about chinky-ass chinks and nigga-ass niggas.

3) We barely ever use it these days, so those whole discussion is fairly moot, but the article and the term are sticking around.

Booyah, bitches!

[generaltojo]

Oh and on another note, Chris Rock uses it too on his internatonally televised routines on the Comedy Channel, and it's hilarious.

Chris Rock - one of the most brilliant comedians out there, these days. Because there's so much social consciousness that forms the bedrock for his (sometimes unflinchingly merciless) humour, laced with serious introspection.

I was hoping for something like that by introducing the term CCB. And, admittedly, I was venting too. Once again, never professed to be perfect. Always learning, always growing, never to be fucked with.

[generaltojo]

don't ever call me a cracker, and if someone called me a cracker on the street i'd beat their ass.

use whatever goddamn words you want. if it makes you feel strong to have a world to call white people fine.

and no all racism isn't equal, its all WRONG and stupid. and odnt get into this arguement about where i dont know where this asian hatred of whitey is coming from. its obvious. but its still wrong.

If you want to look at the world through such a simplistic lens, then that's your prerogative. Just don't expect anyone to appreciate or recognize your nuances either. Talk about a double standard - "I judge your story to be racist, but mine is laced with beautiful subtlety, and you damn well should appreciate that."

No way.

[generaltojo]

your being totally unreasnable.

?????

If you don't get it after all that, you're never gonna get it.



in fact im going to make up a name for people like you.

im going to call you a googlemorf. and yeah its deragotory.

"People like you." Well, there goes the whole notion of respecting individuals as individuals, with their own stories, personal contexts, experiences.

You're very, very callow. Too bad, you were doing pretty well... at least up to a certain point.

[Dialectic]

Worldview, you're not understanding contextual behavior.

It's like your stance against Ethnic-based organizations: an Asian frat is "racist" to you because it accepts only Asians.

You're not seeing the power dynamics affecting certain things. You're like a White buddy of mine (who I actually live with, and we get along great) who used to hate things like Asian dances or Caribbean nights or whatever because they were exclusive and racist.

There's a couple of things to note here:

1) "Dances" and "Fraternities" and "Sororities" and "Upper Management" are, in actuality, "White Dances," "White Fraternities," "White Sororities," and "White Upper Management." This is truth, and ethnics have a hard time getting in, for many, many reasons (both internally and externally caused). They therefore form their own groups because they at least value and appreciate one another as individuals within their ethnicities. Remember, white folk have the social freedom to be individuals. Ethnics do not.

2) There is of course similarity of interest, background, cultural consciousness. If Asian, Black, White, Indian, etc. groups are gonna form anyway because of similarities, might as well call 'em what they are.

Finally, we're not using "cracka" in a mean-spirited way. We're using it like idiot, retard, fucker, asshole, etc. Now really, we shouldn't be using any of these things: we're insulting congenitally dumb people, retarded people, sex-crazed/ dumb people, necessary bodily organs, etc when we use these terms. But we use 'em.

IF you've read our Declarations and Integral forums, you'll know that we are of course not racist in any way. But I, like Chris Rock, enjoy saying "Crack-Ass Cracka" like an old Black man.

(Actually I don't really say it at all, nor do we use it all that much on the site, but you get my point.)

[ZhuBaJie]

It's not about power. It's about EMPOWERMENT. Jesus, if you don't know the difference between the two, then what the fuck are you doing here? Just picking fights with people on a goddamn message board?

no offense, but are you really that dumb? to empower means to invest or equip someone with power. when civil rights leaders or feminist leaders talk about empowerment, they are talking about investing minorities or women with the power to decide their own fate, and to be equal to white men.

Disagree. Power is something you wield over someone else, or have wielded over you. Your assessment of empowerment I agree with - reality is people start wielding power over people through the process of empowerment, and that causes a whole host of problems. It's a tricky proposition in any case.

when the word "empowerment" is used by civil rights advocates, they're generally talking about self empowerment because they're talking about the disenfranchised state of minorities - they don't have as much power over their own lives as white people have over their own lives or even the lives of minorities. and using the word "cracker" doesn't empower anybody. really, to suggest otherwise is an insult to the civil rights movement.

[generaltojo]

and using the word "cracker" doesn't empower anybody. really, to suggest otherwise is an insult to the civil rights movement.

And yet, it still happens, the anger is still there.

Does waxing judgment solve the problem? Or does examining it, getting to know the "why"?

[Dialectic]

and using the word "cracker" doesn't empower anybody. really, to suggest otherwise is an insult to the civil rights movement.

Well, calling yourself "Zhu Ba Jie" is an insult to rationality (there are no pig people or incarnate gods!), to swine (we never asked the pigs if they wanted to be anthropomorphized!), to the Chinese language (which was never meant to be represented by vulgar Western alphabets!), and to democracy (you're the communist/ fascist-designed pinyin system!), and is thus a slap in the face to rational uncorrupt Guo Ming Dang scientists with pet pigs.

We didn't want to bring it up, but there it is ....

[ZhuBaJie]

and using the word "cracker" doesn't empower anybody. really, to suggest otherwise is an insult to the civil rights movement.

And yet, it still happens, the anger is still there.

Does waxing judgment solve the problem? Or does examining it, getting to know the "why"?

i'm "waxing judgement" as much as anybody here who calls Asian women "cracker chasing bitches", when the problems that Asian women face are just the other side of the coin for the problems that Asian men face. does it solve the problem? hell, does using the word "cracker" solve anything at all?

and once again, i'm only offering my opinion here. i never said it should be outlawed here, only that this site might benefit if its usage was discouraged. i don't make the rules around here. whether the mods think it's a good idea or not is entirely up to them.

and yeah, Chris Rock uses it. but then again, i can probably find Asian people who thought Sarah Silverman's use of "chink" in her joke was harmless. and yes, i know that "cracker" doesn't carry any connotations of oppression or slavery. but it's a racial slur nonetheless. there are people out there using the word "chink" because they think the word is harmless. Ben Stiller's movie Meet The Fockers has a "chink" joke in it. there's a restaurant in Philadelphia named "Chink's Steaks". etc etc. they all think the word is harmless.

now how're you or the 44s going to gain the credibility needed to combat these instances when you yourself are using a racial slur because you think it's harmless? it's a racial slur that's not directed at your race. you are in no position to judge that it's harmless. hell, if anything, it invites more non-Asian people to use Asian slurs because they think it's harmless.

[ZhuBaJie]

and using the word "cracker" doesn't empower anybody. really, to suggest otherwise is an insult to the civil rights movement.

Well, calling yourself "Zhu Ba Jie" is an insult to rationality (there are no pig people or incarnate gods!), to swine (we never asked the pigs if they wanted to be anthropomorphized!), to the Chinese language (which was never meant to be represented by vulgar Western alphabets!), and to democracy (you're the communist/ fascist-designed pinyin system!), and is thus a slap in the face to rational uncorrupt Guo Ming Dang scientists with pet pigs.

We didn't want to bring it up, but there it is ....

hahhah ok.

[cattygurl]

^^ I think ZBJ has a point here about using a racial term not aimed at one's race... I do agree that it's not up to us but the people that it's aimed at to decide whether the word is offensive or not.

OTOH, as an English major with interests in anthro and linguistics...

Society gives words power, and as such, the power in the inherent words can be used to make a point, whether it be humorous or hateful. However, humor is a very delicate line and what I find humorous can be construed as hateful, etc.

Overall, words with racist connotations are very, very tricky to deliver in the appropriate sense. It's one thing to be able to use the word as an entertainer on stage to a captive audience, and it's another to use it on an open, online forum. When it comes down to it, there is a strong sense of power attached to these words, and as such, the use of such language is likely to appeal to people that fall in line with the most commonly understoond implication of the word.

[Dialectic]

why make a new word for words that already exist? the only differencei n this word is that it applies to white people specifically...then again no one has ever called you a cracker out of the blue or because they were mad at you. So you just wouldn't understand, huh?

Uh, we didn't actually make up a word or a term. Tojo used "cracker-chasing bitches" as a descriptive phrase, and people started incorporating "CCB" into the lexicon. We've already gone into the common use of "cracker" at length: bottom line is it's not that offensive. All the major American network crackers agree.

I'm not sure what you point is, 'cause you're going a bit incoherent. I been called racial shit and non-racial, but I was never in a position of power when I was called it.

oh please you such a hypocrit. you didn't even understand the post did you? im doing the exact same thing your doing, but its wrong when I say it about you but its ok to use cracker? hahah too funny, too funny

you've never been called cracker have you? i sure the hell have. lots of times. you just dont understand how that word is really used. Its ok, your not white I don't expect you to even be able to understand /sarcasm off

Uh, worldview, there are plenty of posts you haven't understood. And as we've explained, "chink" and "nigger" have connotations FAR worse than "cracka." If you don't believe that, then you don't believe that.

Not that you're annoying me in particular, and I actually kinda enjoy your presence here 'cause you annoy people I like to annoy, but I'm gonna issue a ban warning, 'cause I believe in nipping shit in the bud now.

[Dialectic]

Oh and as for ZBJ and worldview and all the rest, if you really vehemently disagree with our use of the word, you'd better get off our site now 'cause by simply participating here you are tacitly agreeing to and support its use.

Voicing an objection and then continuing to participate doesn't put you in a morally better position, particularly since we've made it clear we're not going to change or take down the article.

[angi]

why make a new word for words that already exist? the only differencei n this word is that it applies to white people specifically...then again no one has ever called you a cracker out of the blue or because they were mad at you. So you just wouldn't understand, huh?

Sit you ass down sonny and learn yourself fucking lesson:

You are missing the fucking point.

1) Cracka as it is used on this site pertains to the racist pieces of shit that have habitually and maliciously fucked with minorities. It is not being used a general term for all white people. Read the context of people's posts here. With a few exceptions of the crazies, I have never, ever seen the word cracka interchanged with white. If you aren't a racist piece of shit, you ain't a cracka. So why the fuck are you offended?

2) It is also a SYMBOL of institutionalized (white) racism. Let me repeat that-- A SYMBOL. "Cracka" symbolically represents institutionalized racism. It's the "cracka's" system that keeps us all fucked. When someone bitches about crackas or "the man," they aren't bitching about indivual white people.

3) Someone using the terms cracka really is nothing more than a term. Only a bitchass, ultra-PC bitch or foaming-mouthed racist would whine about the use of cracka. Why? Because cracka lacks the power of institutionalized oppression that words like nigger, chink, and spic have.

4) And you still haven't grasped the concept that as a white male you are priveledged, which relates directly to number 3, I will use this as one of its many examples. You very well might have grown up some kind of poor white trash. And yes, I am well aware that poor white trash has it hard. There is no doubt about that. The thing is, you don't have to stay poor white trash. You can work hard, move up, and have doors opened for you that minorities can't. You have the benefit of playing Eliza Doolittle to sociey's Henry Higgens. You can climb and assimilate into the elite in a way that makes you indistinguishable from said elite. Where you fit in, the Black guy who has worked his ass off to get there still has to deal with people thinking he got in because of affirmative action or something else. You never have to worry that behind closed doors you're a nice guy, but a nigger is still a nigger. Never.

5) You mentioned before you feel no special affinity toward other white people. Neither do I. But have ever stopped to think why you don't? Maybe it's because you don't have to. You are always accepted as an individual. You are always "worldview." With exception of working in a minority majority workplace, you are never "the white guy." You have the priveledge of being an individual. You have the priveledge of not having to seek out others like you.

6) Before you think I am taking the stance minorities can do no wrong and whites are always racists--I am not. Minorities are just as racist and shitty as white people. A quick scan of some of the posts on this very forum will easily proove that point. The difference is that we, white folks, have the power, not necessarily as individuals, but as a whole.

And that my friend is why cracka neither offends nor irritates me.

[blockthebox]

I *heart* Chris Rock. [BTB waits for ric to accuse her of being a blackophile.]

That "Cracka-ass Cracka" line was fucking AWESOME.

Also: Trying to debate Toj is futile. He's just WAY fucking smarter than you all.

[kalbi]

worldview, you really can be an idiot at times. And this time, it's *definitely* not to do with the fact that you're white.

[blockthebox]

Sit you ass down sonny and learn yourself fucking lesson ...

Excellent post. It'll no doubt fall on deaf ears.

[evil_FUX]

Sit you ass down sonny and learn yourself fucking lesson ...

Excellent post. It'll no doubt fall on deaf ears.

Lets hope not. That post is truly badass.

[JadeDragon]

Beautiful post, Angi! :)

I came across an article that pertains to this topic before, and I think I should post it here:

White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack
I was taught to see racism only in individual acts of meanness, not in invisible systems conferring dominance on my group

Peggy McIntosh

Through work to bring materials from women's studies into the rest of the curriculum, I have often noticed men's unwillingness to grant that they are overprivileged, even though they may grant that women are disadvantaged. They may say they will work to improve women's status, in the society, the university, or the curriculum, but they can't or won't support the idea of lessening men's. Denials that amount to taboos surround the subject of advantages that men gain from women's disadvantages. These denials protect male privilege from being fully acknowledged, lessened, or ended.

Thinking through unacknowledged male privilege as a phenomenon, I realized that, since hierarchies in our society are interlocking, there are most likely a phenomenon of while privilege that was similarly denied and protected. As a white person, I realized I had been taught about racism as something that puts others at a disadvantage, but had been taught not to see on of its corollary aspects, white privilege, which puts me at an advantage.

I think whites are carefully taught not to recognize white privilege, as males are taught not to recognize male privilege. So I have begun in an untutored way to ask what it is like to have white privilege. I have come to see white privilege as an invisible package of unearned assets that I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was "meant" to remain oblivious. White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools , and blank checks.

Describing white privilege makes one newly accountable. As we in Women's Studies work to reveal male privilege and ask men to give up some of their power, so one who writes about having white privilege must ask, "Having described it, what will I do to lessen or end it?"

After I realized the extent to which men work from a base of unacknowledged privilege, I understood that much of their oppressiveness was unconscious. Then I remembered the frequent charges from women of color that white women whom they encounter are oppressive. I began to understand why we are justly seen as oppressive, even when we don't see ourselves that way. I began to count the ways in which I enjoy unearned skin privilege and have been conditioned into oblivion about its existence.

My schooling gave me no training in seeing myself as an oppressor, as an unfairly advantaged person, or as a participant in a damaged culture. I was taught to see myself as an individual whose moral state depended on her individual moral will. My schooling followed the pattern my colleague Elizabeth Minnich has pointed out: whites are taught to think of their lives as morally neutral, normative, and average, and also ideal, so that when we work to benefit others, this is seen as work which will allow "them" to be more like "us".

I decided to try to work on myself at least by identifying some of the daily effects of white privilege in my life. I have chosen those conditions which I think in my case attach somewhat more to skin color privilege than to class, religion, ethnic status, or geographical location, though of course all these other factors are intricately intertwined. As far as I can see, my African American coworkers, friends and acquaintances with whom I come into daily or frequent contact in this particular time, place, and line of work cannot count on most of these conditions.

I usually think of privilege as being a favored state, whether earned or conferred by birth or luck. Yet some of the conditions I have described here work to systematically overempower certain groups. Such privilege simply confers dominance because of one's race or sex.

1)I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.
2)If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.
3)I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.
4)I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.
5)I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.
6)When I am told about our national heritage or about "civilization," I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.
7)I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race.
8)If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege.
9)I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods which fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser's shop and find someone who can cut my hair.
10)Whether I use checks, credit cards, or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of financial reliability.
11)I can arrange to protect my children most of the time from people who might not like them.
12)I can swear, or dress in second hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals,the poverty, or the illiteracy of my race.
13)I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial.
14)I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.
15)I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.
16)I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the world's majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.
17)I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider.
18)I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to "the person in charge," I will be facing a person of my race.
19)If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven't been singled out because of my race.
20)I can easily buy posters, postcards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys, and children's magazines featuring people of my race.
21)I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out-of-place, out numbered, unheard, held at a distance, or feared.
22)I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having coworkers on the job suspect that I got it because of race.
23)I can choose public accommodation without fearing that people of my race cannot get in or will be mistreated in the places I have chosen.
24)I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will not work against me.
25)If my day, week, or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it has racial overtones.
26)I can choose blemish cover or bandages in flesh color and have them more or less match my skin.

I repeatedly forgot each of the realizations on this list until I wrote it down. For me white privilege has turned out to be an elusive and fugitive subject. The pressure to avoid it is great, for in facing it I must give up the myth of meritocracy. If these things are true, this is not such a free country; one's life is not what one makes it; many doors open for certain people through no virtues of their own.

In unpacking this invisible knapsack of white privilege, I have listed conditions of daily experience which I once took for granted. Nor did I think of any of these prequisites as bad for the holder. I now think that we need a more finely differentiated taxonomy of privilege, for some of these varieties are only what one would want for everyone in a just society, and others give license to be ignorant.

I see a pattern running through the matrix of white privilege, a pattern of assumptions which were passed on to me as a white person. There was one main piece of cultural turf; it was my own turf, and I was among those who could control the turf. My skin color was an asset for any move I was educated to want to make. I could think of myself as belonging in major ways, and of making social systems work for me. I could freely disparage, fear, neglect, or be oblivious to anything outside of the dominant cultural forms. Being of the main culture, I could also criticize it fairly freely.

In proportion as my racial group was being made confident, comfortable, and oblivious, other groups were likely being made unconfident, uncomfortable, and alienated. Whiteness protected me from many kinds of hostility, distress, and violence, which I was being subtly trained to visit in turn upon people of color. For this reason, the word "privilege" now seems to me misleading. We want, then, to distinguish between earned strength and unearned power conferred systematically. Power from unearned privilege can look like strength when it is in fact permission to escape or to dominate. But not all of the privileges on my list are inevitably damaging. Some, like the expectation that neighbors will be decent to you, or that your race will not count against you in court, should be the norm in a just society. Others, like the privilege to ignore less powerful people, distort the humanity of the holders as well as the ignored groups.

We might at least start by distinguishing between positive advantages which we can work to spread, and negative types of advantages which unless rejected will always reinforce our present hierarchies. For example, the feeling that one belongs within the human circle, as Native Americans say, should not be seen as privilege for a few. Ideally it is an unearned entitlement. At present, since only a few have it, it is an unearned advantage for them. This paper results from a process of coming to see that some of the power which I originally saw as attendant on being a human being in the U.S. consisted in unearned advantage and conferred dominance.

I have met very few men who are truly distressed about systemic, unearned male advantage and conferred dominance. And so one question for me and others like me is whether we will be like them, or whether we will get truly distressed, even outraged, about unearned race advantage and conferred dominance and if so, what we will do to lessen them. In any case, we need to do more work in identifying how they actually affect our daily lives. Many, perhaps most, of our white students in the U.S. think that racism doesn't affect them because they are not people of color; they do not see "whiteness" as a racial identity. In addition, since race and sex are not the only advantaging systems at work, we need similarly to examine the daily experience of having age advantage, or ethnic advantage, or physical ability, or advantage related to nationality, religion, or sexual orientation.

Difficulties and dangers surrounding the task of finding parallels are many. Since racism, sexism, and heterosexism are not the same, the advantaging associated with them should not be seen as the same. In addition, it is hard to disentangle aspects of unearned advantage which rest more on social class, economic class, race, religion, sex and ethnic identity than on other factors. Still, all of the oppressions are interlocking, as the Combahee River Collective State-ment of 1977 continues to remind us eloquently. One factor seems clear about all of the interlocking oppressions. They take both active forms which we can see and embedded forms which as a member of the dominant group one is taught not to see. In my class and place, I did not see myself as a racist because I was taught to recognize racism only in individual acts of meanness by members of my group, never in invisible systems conferring unsought racial dominance on my group from birth.

Disapproving of the systems won't be enough to change them. I was taught to think that racism could end if white individuals changed their attitudes. But a white skin in the United States opens many doors for whites whether or not we approve of the way dominance has been conferred on us. Individual acts can palliate, but cannot end, these problems.

To redesign social systems we need first to acknowledge their colossal unseen dimensions. The silences and denials surrounding privilege are the key political tool here. They keep the thinking about equality or equity incomplete, protecting unearned advantage and conferred dominance by making these taboo subjects. Most talk by whites about equal opportunity seems to be now to be about equal opportunity to try to get into a position of dominance while denying that systems of dominance exist.

It seems to me that obliviousness about white advantage, like obliviousness about male advantage, is kept strongly inculturated in the United States so as to maintain the myth of meritocracy, the myth that democratic choice is equally available to all. Keeping most people unaware that freedom of confident action is there for just a small number of people props up those in power, and serves to keep power in the hands of the same groups that have most of it already.

Though systemic change takes many decades, there are pressing questions for me and I imagine for some others like me if we raise our daily consciousness on the perquisites of being light skinned. What will we do with such knowledge? As we know from watching men, it is an open question whether we will choose to use unearned advantage to weaken hidden systems of advantage, and whether we will use any of our arbitrarily awarded power to try to reconstruct power systems on a broader base.

Peggy McIntosh is associate director of the Wellesley Collage Center for Research on Women. This essay is excerpted from Working Paper 189. "White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming To See Correspondences through Work in Women's Studies" (1988), by Peggy McIntosh; available for $4.00 from the Wellesley College Center for Research on Women, Wellesley MA 02181 The working paper contains a longer list of privileges.

[B the student]

a cracka to me is a racist white asshole, not a blinded-by-privilege white dude. them foolios are just ign'nt. i don't got qualms for it being used to describe incredibly stupid white people either altho i will admit that it is a missapplication of the term.

and yes i do use the term when refering specifically to racist white people. why not? they already have it as good as fuck, won't hurt them too much to have a taste of what it's like to have a racial slur slapped on their racist asses. and if, by some unknown forces work, they do say "ouch that hurt" or "hey that's racist" i'll tell them "what's your point? if you're good enough to dish that shit out, your ass is good enough to take it." who knows maybe someday i'll grow out of using it for some higher intellectual insult. wouldn't hold my breath tho.

i do use it jokingly with my white friends too. oh well to each his own.

and yes Chris Rock is the shit. his delivery is just awesome. fills my belly with laughter it does.

and Angi kick ass post. nothin but net girl, nothin but net.

[ZhuBaJie]

Oh and as for ZBJ and worldview and all the rest, if you really vehemently disagree with our use of the word, you'd better get off our site now 'cause by simply participating here you are tacitly agreeing to and support its use.

Voicing an objection and then continuing to participate doesn't put you in a morally better position, particularly since we've made it clear we're not going to change or take down the article.

i disagree. i don't have to agree with everything that something stands for to participate. otherwise i might as well just stop my ISP subscription.

like i've repeated before, it's only my opinion. if you agree, especially what i said about gaining the credibility to voice your concerns about our society, then great. if you disagree, that's fine, too. i'm not going to pull my hair out or anything over it, and nobody should either just because they disagree.

[ZhuBaJie]

why make a new word for words that already exist? the only differencei n this word is that it applies to white people specifically...then again no one has ever called you a cracker out of the blue or because they were mad at you. So you just wouldn't understand, huh?

Sit you ass down sonny and learn yourself fucking lesson:

You are missing the fucking point.

1) Cracka as it is used on this site pertains to the racist pieces of shit that have habitually and maliciously fucked with minorities. It is not being used a general term for all white people. Read the context of people's posts here. With a few exceptions of the crazies, I have never, ever seen the word cracka interchanged with white. If you aren't a racist piece of shit, you ain't a cracka. So why the fuck are you offended?

2) It is also a SYMBOL of institutionalized (white) racism. Let me repeat that-- A SYMBOL. "Cracka" symbolically represents institutionalized racism. It's the "cracka's" system that keeps us all fucked. When someone bitches about crackas or "the man," they aren't bitching about indivual white people.

3) Someone using the terms cracka really is nothing more than a term. Only a bitchass, ultra-PC bitch or foaming-mouthed racist would whine about the use of cracka. Why? Because cracka lacks the power of institutionalized oppression that words like nigger, chink, and spic have.

4) And you still haven't grasped the concept that as a white male you are priveledged, which relates directly to number 3, I will use this as one of its many examples. You very well might have grown up some kind of poor white trash. And yes, I am well aware that poor white trash has it hard. There is no doubt about that. The thing is, you don't have to stay poor white trash. You can work hard, move up, and have doors opened for you that minorities can't. You have the benefit of playing Eliza Doolittle to sociey's Henry Higgens. You can climb and assimilate into the elite in a way that makes you indistinguishable from said elite. Where you fit in, the Black guy who has worked his ass off to get there still has to deal with people thinking he got in because of affirmative action or something else. You never have to worry that behind closed doors you're a nice guy, but a nigger is still a nigger. Never.

5) You mentioned before you feel no special affinity toward other white people. Neither do I. But have ever stopped to think why you don't? Maybe it's because you don't have to. You are always accepted as an individual. You are always "worldview." With exception of working in a minority majority workplace, you are never "the white guy." You have the priveledge of being an individual. You have the priveledge of not having to seek out others like you.

6) Before you think I am taking the stance minorities can do no wrong and whites are always racists--I am not. Minorities are just as racist and shitty as white people. A quick scan of some of the posts on this very forum will easily proove that point. The difference is that we, white folks, have the power, not necessarily as individuals, but as a whole.

And that my friend is why cracka neither offends nor irritates me.

that's really great. but all that you wrote neglect to consider the fact that a term need not connotate oppression for it to be offensive.

and i understand that many Asian members can point to you and say "see, a white person doesn't mind the term 'cracker'". but i don't see that as much different from ultra conservatives that say, "look, Michelle Malkin thinks racial profiling is ok."

[Scowl]

that's really great. but all that you wrote neglect to consider the fact that a term need not connotate oppression for it to be offensive.

Well, in that case, wouldn't it be no more offensive than any non-racial insult, like asshole, dick, etc.?

and i understand that many Asian members can point to you and say "see, a white person doesn't mind the term 'cracker'". but i don't see that as much different from ultra conservatives that say, "look, Michelle Malkin thinks racial profiling is ok."

While you do have a point (and I do have some problems with use of the term "cracker"), the difference is in "who is on top." In Michelle Malkin's case, she is supporting the structure that keeps the privileged in power, which directly oppresses "her people (at least, the people she came from)." In angi's case, she actually stands to lose out (in terms of material benefits) by taking that stance.

[blockthebox]

The following article is pretty good. It's a bit long, but you can do it!

ESSAY: The 'Good' White People

By Robert Jensen

June 1, 2004 -- I stepped onto the speakers' platform at the Virginia Festival of Books in Charlottesville with Newsday editor Les Payne to discuss our chapters in his book When Race Becomes Real. Bernestine Singley, the other panelist, had edited the book.

As I walked to my seat, I was well aware of Payne's impressive record. Of the two of us, Payne is the more experienced journalist; has won more prizes; has written more important books; has traveled widely and reported on more complex subjects; is older and has done more in his life; and is a more commanding speaker.

So, as I sat down at my seat, I did what came naturally; I felt superior to Les Payne. If it seems odd that I would feel superior to someone I knew to be more talented and accomplished than I am, then here is another relevant fact: Les Payne is African American, and I am white.

I didn't recognize that feeling of superiority as I sat down. It wasn't until Payne started speaking that my feeling became so painfully clear to me.

Payne talked about how, as a teenager born in the segregated South who attended high school in the North, he had struggled to overcome the internalized sense of inferiority which grew from the environment in which he had been raised. He talked about how deep that sense of inherent inferiority can be for African Americans.

Eventually, I made the obvious connection: Part of the reason the struggle Payne described is so hard for African Americans is because white behavior is a constant expression of that feeling of superiority, expressed in a fashion both subtle and overt.

I recalled the feeling of superiority I felt as we had taken our seats. I had assumed, despite all that I knew about Les Payne, his record, and his speaking ability, that I would be the highlight of the panel.

Why?

It might be because I'm an egotistical white boy. Maybe I'm a white boy with delusions of grandeur. The former almost certainly is true. The latter may be an exaggeration.

But whatever my own personal weaknesses are, one factor is obvious: I am white and Payne is African American, and that was the basis of my feeling.

The moment that particular feeling hit me, I was left literally speechless, fighting back tears, with a profound sense of sadness. I struggled to focus, but it was difficult.

Payne finished, and Singley started her reading. When the speaking period ended, I did my best to answer questions. But I remained shaken.

Deep sadness, deeply embedded
Why all of this drama? It was because I fancied myself one of the "good" white people, one of the anti-racist white people.

But in that moment, I had to confront that which I had not yet relinquished: the basic psychological features of racism. As Payne talked honestly of struggling with a sense of inferiority, I had to face that I had never really shaken a sense of my superiority.

As I write these words, the feeling of that moment of sadness returns. Do not mistake this for superficial shame or guilt. Do not describe me as a self-indulgent white liberal. The sadness I feel is not for me. The sadness is how deeply embedded in me is that fundamental reality of racism ó the assumption that white people are superior.

That doesn't mean I'm a racist. It doesn't mean my political work or efforts in the classroom don't matter. Instead, it means that what I say to my students about race ó that the dynamics of domination and subordination run deep, affecting us in ways we don't always see clearly ó is true not only in theory. It is also true in my psyche.

Payne's words forced me to feel what I had long known. That wasn't his intention; he was speaking to the audience ó which was primarily African American ó not to me.

Whatever the intent, he did me that service. But I am most grateful to Payne not for that, but for something that happened later.

After the event, I was planning to drive to Washington, D.C. When I mentioned that to Payne, he asked if he could ride with me and catch a flight from D.C. back to New York. I jumped at the chance, in part because I wanted to hear more about his research for his forthcoming book on Malcolm X, but also because I wanted to talk to him about what had happened to me on stage.

Les Payne is a gracious man; he listened to my story, nodding throughout.

After I had finished Payne did something for which I will always be grateful: He didn't forgive me. He made no attempt to make me feel better. He didn't reassure me that I was, in fact, one of the "good" white people. He simply acknowledged what I had told him, said he understood, and continued our discussion about the politics of race in the United States.

During the panel, without knowing it, Payne had given me the gift of feeling uncomfortable.

In the car, perhaps with full knowledge of what he was doing, he gave me the gift of not letting me off the hook.

When I dropped him at the airport, I had no illusions. The day had meant much more to me than to him. He had been willing to teach me something, and then he went on to other things. His personal struggle with internalized inferiority was largely over; his chapter in the book made that clear, as did his interaction with me.

But I was left with the unfinished project of dealing with my internalized sense of superiority. And it was clear to both of us that such a project was my responsibility, not his.

'Good' white men
The story doesn't end there.

On the platform with us was Bernestine Singley, who is every bit as black as Les Payne, and every bit as accomplished a lawyer and writer. Why am I focusing on him and not her? Why did he spark this realization in me and she did not?

In part it was because of what Payne talked about on stage; his words had pushed my buttons. Also, I have known Singley longer and have a more established relationship with her. We live in different cities and are not friends in a conventional sense, but I consider her (and I hope she considers me) a trustworthy ally and comrade in the struggle, and a friend in that context. Singley and I also have very different styles, and when we appear on panels together we clearly are not competing.

With all that said, it's also difficult to miss the fact that Singley is a woman and Payne is a man. There was not only a race dynamic on stage, but also a gender dynamic. It's likely that I was, in classic male fashion, focusing on the struggle for dominance with the other man on the panel.

This perception also is hard to face: In addition to being a good white person, you see, I'm also a good man. I'm one of the men on the right side. But I also am one of the men who, whatever side he is on, struggles with the reality of living in a male-supremacist society.

Introspection on these matters is difficult; those of us in privileged positions often are not in the best position to evaluate our own behavior. But looking back on that day, it appears to me I walked onto that platform with an assumption of my inherent superiority ó so deeply woven into me that I could not in the moment see it ó that had something to do with race and gender.

From those assumptions, it is hard to reach a conclusion other than: I was a fool.

I use that term consciously, because throughout history white people have often cast blacks as the fool to shore up our sense of superiority. But in that game, it is white people who are the fools, and it is difficult and painful to confront that.

Somehow, I had allowed myself to believe the story that a racist and sexist society still tells. Yes, I know that Jim Crow segregation is gone and the overt ideology that supported it is mostly gone.

But in the struggle to change the world, what matters is not only what law is, or what polite people say in public. What matters just as much, if not more, is what we really are, deep down.

Playing for keeps
All this matters not just because white people should learn to be better or nicer, but because as long as we whites believe we are better ó deep down, in places most of us have learned to hide ó we will not feel compelled to change a society in which black unemployment is twice the white rate. And in which, as a recent study has found, a white man with a criminal record is more likely to be called back for a job interview than a black man with no record.

In the United States, the typical black family has 58% as much income as a typical white family. And at the slow rate the black-white poverty gap has been narrowing since 1968, it will take 150 years to close. At the current rate, blacks and whites won't reach high school graduation parity until 2013, nearly 60 years after the Brown v. Board of Education decision.

That is an ugly society.

The first step for white people is to face that ugliness, to tell the truth about the system we live in and tell the truth about ourselves. But that means nothing if we do not commit to change, not just to change ourselves, but to change the system. We have to face the ways in which white supremacy makes white people foolish but forces others to pay a much greater price.

We have to stop playing the fool and start playing for keeps.

From: http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_tol.jsp?id=999

[ZhuBaJie]

that's really great. but all that you wrote neglect to consider the fact that a term need not connotate oppression for it to be offensive.

Well, in that case, wouldn't it be no more offensive than any non-racial insult, like asshole, dick, etc.?

the difference is that racial terms doesn't address one's behaviour/personality/etc like "asshole" or "dick". racial slurs blanketly insult people just for belonging to a particular race.

some people will probably say that "cracker" here refers to white people who are assholes/racists/what-have-you. i can easily say that when i say "coon", i'm only referring to black people who are assholes. but the term is insulting nonetheless.

and i understand that many Asian members can point to you and say "see, a white person doesn't mind the term 'cracker'". but i don't see that as much different from ultra conservatives that say, "look, Michelle Malkin thinks racial profiling is ok."

While you do have a point (and I do have some problems with use of the term "cracker"), the difference is in "who is on top." In Michelle Malkin's case, she is supporting the structure that keeps the privileged in power, which directly oppresses "her people (at least, the people she came from)." In angi's case, she actually stands to lose out (in terms of material benefits) by taking that stance.

yes, i understand that. but i was talking about the people who uses Michelle Malkin's or missmeow's comments as a justification for their behaviour, where firstly even without these comments, they think their words and actions are ok, but with these comments, they justify what they do and say to the people who are the targets of their actions. really, it's not too far a step from saying, "hey, i have black friends, therefore i'm not racist!"

[xian]

Brilliant post by angi, and nice articles cited, ladies. I wondered when Ms. McIntosh would surface in the white privilege debate. Her work is very good, but it does bother me that the only way most white folks seem to listen on issues of race is if another white person writes something on it. That's not a knock on her work, but the way it's treated sometimes reminds me of Columbus all over again.

I would like to add a couple of things:
First of all, let's remember that not all slurs (racial or otherwise) are created equal. When you are talking about a term like "chinaman", you are talking about thousands upon thousands of dead railroad workers that basically were dead because white people thought that Asian people were sub-human. When you are talking about cracka, what is the threat behind the word?

To put it more lucidly, "racism" is a "system of advantage based on race". Some systems are more emcompassing and powerful than others. Certainly the systems that benefit whites in the US (and Canada, etc.) are more powerful than those that benefit non-whites. Since these systems overlap, it's as foolish to say, "Well, all racism is bad!" as it is to say, "Anything that affects your health negative is bad, so absolutely no chemotherapy!" It's fun to say, "We should find something that doesn't have as many side effect to fight cancer!" but if we haven't found that alternative yet, either go find it yourself, or shut the fuck up.

All that being said, I do think the worldview's and ZBJ's of the thread do have a point on their side that they haven't discovered yet:
We don't just fight back with certain tactics against white systems of advantage because we can justify it or it makes us feel good. Sure, none of us are perfect, so critics need to understand our plight and cut us some slack when we respond in rage.

But we shouldn't cut ourselves slack in determining our goals. We owe it to ourselves to be as strategic and effective as we possibly can. "CCB" flat-out was a mistake in my eyes. I think that it's great that Tojo wrote the article and got the issue out there in a coherent form, but the way it was framed could have been better. The inflamatory nature of the rhetoric would lead those not sympathetic to our movement to write off the core ideas, no matter how good they are.

More importantly, those who identify with the issues involved, may often feel tempted to wield the CCB term as an anti-AF slur. This has happened since day one. This is a shame, as from what I read in the article, this is not a term intended to be about AF/WM couples in general, only those fitting the precise criteria outlined in the piece. But it's too bad, because it was pretty obvious with the nature of the term that that's the direction it was going to go.

Of course, it's still a great constructive effort. Tojo's fair response could be, "It ain't perfect, but it's art and it's mine. Where the fuck is your art that addresses the point?"

This is a key issue with ethnic majority critics of minority empowerment arts and movement--they nitpick all the things they find wrong with the movement, but then they don't do shit themselves. There's this idea that their criticism is some sort of great contribution in itself.

Unfortunately, that's just the privilege speaking. Critics are a dime a dozen, someone who is willing to perform action, even flawed is a rare, needed breed in any move toward a better society.

[Dialectic]

Blockthebox, terrific article.

I don't believe the Tojo article was a flat-out mistake (though I do believe it could've been funnier).

"Cracker" is not on the same level as as "nigger," "coon," "chink," "slant," "towelhead," etc. It's just not. It's on the level of "hick" and "redneck."

And as long as King of the Hill and Chris Rock use it humorously, then so will we (though again, we don't really use it except for that article and the term CCB, which we didn't, by the way, initiate).

Advocates of anything (race, gender, class, health, etc.) always run the risk of taking themselves, taking others, and being taken too seriously. We've seen that all over this board, even in the non-crazy members. Our facetiousness (remember, we insult fucked-up AMs too, and generally everybody) is a guarantee against that.

As points are simply being repeated at this juncture, this thread is effectively over. Great discussion, guys.

[Tyger Durden]

Blockthebox, terrific article.

I don't believe the Tojo article was a flat-out mistake (though I do believe it could've been funnier).

"Cracker" is not on the same level as as "nigger," "coon," "chink," "slant," "towelhead," etc. It's just not. It's on the level of "hick" and "redneck."

And as long as King of the Hill and Chris Rock use it humorously, then so will we (though again, we don't really use it except for that article and the term CCB, which we didn't, by the way, initiate).

Advocates of anything (race, gender, class, health, etc.) always run the risk of taking themselves, taking others, and being taken too seriously. We've seen that all over this board, even in the non-crazy members. Our facetiousness (remember, we insult fucked-up AMs too, and generally everybody) is a guarantee against that.

As points are simply being repeated at this juncture, this thread is effectively over. Great discussion, guys.

I agree with this ^ take on the term.

I think it's a funny and humorous term, something that shouldn't be taken too seriously. It certainly is NOT on the same level as traditional ethnic slurs.

"Honky/honkie" is too silly to use, but to be honest, I've never used "Cracka" in RL though. Weird :?

"CCB" is flat-out the funniest term i've heard in Cyberspace and that word is nothing without the "Cracka" tie-in. :)

[KeJia Sista]

Crackers

The epithet cracker has been applied in a derogatory way, like redneck, to rural, non-elite white southerners, more specifically to those of south Georgia and north Florida. Folk etymology claims the term originated either from their cracking, or pounding, of corn (rather than taking it to mill), or from their use of whips to drive cattle. The latter explanation makes sense, because in piney-woods Georgia and Florida pastoral yeomen did use bullwhips with "cracker" tips to herd cattle.

The true history of the name, however, is more involved and shows a shift in application over time. Linguists now believe the original root to be the Gaelic craic, still used in Ireland (anglicized in spelling to crack) for "entertaining conversation." The English meaning of cracker as a braggart appears by Elizabethan times, as, for example, in Shakespeare's King John (1595): "What cracker is this ... that deafes our ears / With this abundance of superfluous breath?"

By the 1760s the English, both at home and in colonial America, were applying the term to Scots-Irish settlers of the southern backcountry, as in this passage from a letter to the earl of Dartmouth: "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." The word then came to be associated with the cowboys of Georgia and Florida, many of them descendants of those early frontiersmen.

Among African Americans cracker became a contemptuous term for a white southerner; among some southern whites it has become a label of ethnic and regional pride, boosted by the election of south Georgian Jimmy Carter to the presidency in 1976. This led to the coining of the word crackertude as a not entirely serious equivalent for negritude.

Suggested Reading

Kay L. Cothran, "Talking Trash in the Okefenokee Swamp Rim, Georgia," in Readings in American Folklore, ed. Jan H. Brunvand (New York: Norton, 1979).

Grady McWhiney, Cracker Culture: Celtic Ways in the Old South (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1988).

John Solomon Otto, "Cracker: The History of a Southeastern Ethnic, Economic, and Racial Epithet," Names 35 (1987): 28-39.

Delma E. Presley, "The Crackers of Georgia," Georgia Historical Quarterly 60 (summer 1976): 102-16.

Ke Jia

[Infectious]

Brilliant post by angi, and nice articles cited, ladies. I wondered when Ms. McIntosh would surface in the white privilege debate. Her work is very good, but it does bother me that the only way most white folks seem to listen on issues of race is if another white person writes something on it. That's not a knock on her work, but the way it's treated sometimes reminds me of Columbus all over again.

I'm sorry, xian, but it's actually worse than that. Most whites probably think that Ms. McIntosh's ideas and the whole concept of "anti-racism" to be ridiculous. Even people who are normally receptive to the idea of "racial equality". A lot of people believe that racial equality mostly exists because Jim Crow laws have been eliminated.

The problem is that the idea of anti-racism offends their very soul (Jensen's article illustrates this very clearly.)

[xian]

Brilliant post by angi, and nice articles cited, ladies. I wondered when Ms. McIntosh would surface in the white privilege debate. Her work is very good, but it does bother me that the only way most white folks seem to listen on issues of race is if another white person writes something on it. That's not a knock on her work, but the way it's treated sometimes reminds me of Columbus all over again.

I'm sorry, xian, but it's actually worse than that. Most whites probably think that Ms. McIntosh's ideas and the whole concept of "anti-racism" to be ridiculous. Even people who are normally receptive to the idea of "racial equality". A lot of people believe that racial equality mostly exists because Jim Crow laws have been eliminated.

The problem is that the idea of anti-racism offends their very soul (Jensen's article illustrates this very clearly.)

Of course this is true--the bottom line is that ethnically organized societies train the ethnic majority to be uninterested in self-knowledge on ethnic issues. From person to person, there's a ton of variation, but in general, they will attack anything that might shine light on to their own flaws and inconsistencies.

[xian]

Quite frankly, "cracker" or "cracka" is not hateful. White people use it jokingly, and they don't mind when others do. They regularly make the Khan character on King of the Hill use it, and it's funny.

I just proved your theory wrong.

Pn the other hand, I know lots of people who say "chink" and "gook". I try to tell 'em to stfu everytime but it gets frustrating.

I take offense to any racial slur. Including cracker whitey or whatever you want.

why can't i just be a man? why do i have to be a cracker? Pay me some respect or else why should i respect you?

You can't just be a man because of a system of racial privilege that exists whether we choose to believe in it or not.

When have you paid those of us who don't use the term "cracker" any respect?

We are discussion oppression that hurts everyone, especially people of color in the society on a daily basis. You waltz in just to discuss that a few people aren't paying you proper respect through the use of a hollow racial slur.

How is that respect?

[ric]

Genetics,

How about the term " YT ?" or:

Y TEEE ?

Pale ?

Pasty?

Colorless ?

Absence of pigment ?

prism ?

saltine?

[Dialectic]

Your shit is old, Anthony.

Rock uses it, King of the Hill uses it, White folk use it the same way they use "redneck." Also, you're the one in power, not us.

I notice you haven't answered my four posts in your re-introduction. If we don't get a satisfactory answer to those, I'm not sure why you should be re-granted access.

Your IP-ban wasn't lifted; you're posting from different IPs now is all.

[angi]

goddamn, this mofo dug up this thread and necroposted.

[xian]

Quite frankly, "cracker" or "cracka" is not hateful. White people use it jokingly, and they don't mind when others do. They regularly make the Khan character on King of the Hill use it, and it's funny.

I just proved your theory wrong.

Pn the other hand, I know lots of people who say "chink" and "gook". I try to tell 'em to stfu everytime but it gets frustrating.

I take offense to any racial slur. Including cracker whitey or whatever you want.

why can't i just be a man? why do i have to be a cracker? Pay me some respect or else why should i respect you?

You can't just be a man because of a system of racial privilege that exists whether we choose to believe in it or not.

When have you paid those of us who don't use the term "cracker" any respect?

We are discussion oppression that hurts everyone, especially people of color in the society on a daily basis. You waltz in just to discuss that a few people aren't paying you proper respect through the use of a hollow racial slur.

How is that respect?

your right there is no respect, because by calling people who have less melanin in their skin a racial slur you are giving them and ME no respect.

Should I go around calling chinese people slant eyes? No. That's just as disrespectful as calling me cracker.

Would you call me a cracker to my face? Odds are against it. why? because you know a white person (and me) would take offense and probably get violent. On a messageboard though, we can hide and say what you want. A good judge of whether the word is disrespectful or not would be if youb would say it to my face.

How many of you would look me plain in the eye and refer to me as a cracker? No one. you would call me Anthony.

Who is this "you" you always refer to? I ask you the same question again, since when have you shown any respect to people of color who don't call you a cracker? I just asked you that simple question and you threatened to call Chinese people "slant eyes".

I don't need to use racial slurs to disrespect you, you disrespect yourself with your racist actions.

Meet me on the Red Line sometime, I'd be happy to call you out on your "color blind" racism in person. You can threaten me or attack me or whatever you are threatening in your previous post, but I'm not afraid. My broken nose will still have "hate crime" all over it.

Peace.

[dragon]

I'm sticking with "Haole". I give everyone permission to appropriate it and claim it as their own.

[the Infamous Grouse]

Cracker and cracka are great terms. I'm also a big fan of whitebread. Being the typical WASP, I use cracker all the time when I'm talking about the faceless denizens of the Red States. Nobody has really applied those terms to me, but one of my friends constantly mocks how white I am...I'm pretty white. Most recently he compared me to the light from a search light. What do you expect? my office is the definition of interior space. In any case, there are some racial slurs that are more hurtful than others. Yeah, it may seem like a double standard for me to say "hell yeah, call me and other white people crackers" and then turn around to white people and say "don't call him a chink/gook/slope/slant/et cetera." The difference is that when cracker is applied, i think it's applied with justification to more ignorant whites, but when the latter slurs are used, they lack that connotation and are just hurtful on a broad spectrum.

[Dialectic]

"You're breaking my balls, Hans Brix!"

"I feel so ronery."

I didn't really have a problem with that shit in Team America (I know some people here did), and the musical number was pretty funny, and that's about along the same lines as "Cracker," or possibly worse, so really, it ain't no thang.

If Khan on King of the Hill, written by White folk, can go "cracker cracker cracker" but White folk cannot similarly write characters tha say "nigga nigga" or "chinky chinky" then that's all the difference right there.

At any rate, it's not like we use it all that much, except in blatantly parodic or satirical shit like Tojo's first article, so again, it's no big deal.

"So ronery ...."

[cattygurl]

With the term cracker, there definitely isn't the type of strong connotation that other racist slurs have.

That's not to say that it's not a slur or it's not fighting words when used in a derogatory fashion. You can say "jerk" on TV, but that doesn't mean that if you call someone a jerk, they're not going to be offended.

I think the context of how it's used is as important as the word itself.

I think it's fair to say that cracker can be used a lot more liberally without being offensive, but that doesn't mean that it CANNOT be used in an offensive fashion.

[xian]

Cracker and cracka are great terms. I'm also a big fan of whitebread. Being the typical WASP, I use cracker all the time when I'm talking about the faceless denizens of the Red States. Nobody has really applied those terms to me, but one of my friends constantly mocks how white I am...I'm pretty white. Most recently he compared me to the light from a search light. What do you expect? my office is the definition of interior space. In any case, there are some racial slurs that are more hurtful than others. Yeah, it may seem like a double standard for me to say "hell yeah, call me and other white people crackers" and then turn around to white people and say "don't call him a chink/gook/slope/slant/et cetera." The difference is that when cracker is applied, i think it's applied with justification to more ignorant whites, but when the latter slurs are used, they lack that connotation and are just hurtful on a broad spectrum.

The problem with this is that people also can say the same thing about nigger. Don't you know the difference between a nigger and a black person? Or how aboit a chink and an asian person?

Its a racial slur. I don't like people using it. Sure, when its a JOKE once in awhile its ok. I make stupid jokes too, but you guys use it on a consistent basis when [/b]you[/b] whine about how asian girls belong to you, and that it would be so much better if asian girls "just stuck with us".

Once again, my stereotyping friend who ignores any questioning posts and just chugs along cherry-picking sound bites he wants to respond to and ignores everything else, who do you mean by "you"?

From my knowledge, IG has never demonstrated any of the traits you refer to.

From my knowledge, the ethnic group that IG belongs to doesn't use the term very often, but your description of them having a weird entitlement ideal revolving around Asian American women is certainly indicative of what's going on in the society (although once again not in reference to IG).

What are you trying to say?

This is what I got from the white privilege translator:
[WPT on] I'm going to use the term nigger a bunch but not address the differences that people have pointed out to me between the two terms because I like to use the term nigger when I'm losing an argument on racial issues because it gets a rise out of people Now I'm going to use the term chink so I can slur the fine hosts of this board and the general spirit of the board again.

I don't like when chinks use the word cracker and you are just chinks so you should listen to what I say I make racist jokes too but Im white so I know exactly when its ok to do so and you dont I cant tell you chinks apart so when I here some chinks using the term cracker I get mad and attack all of you Normally that wouldn't be fair because I'm usually color blind but you are just chinks so its ok You chinks need to stop whining because you cant get slanty vagina hot asn pussy like me.
[WPT off]

Ooh, that's not pretty.

[cattygurl]

genetics,

WHY are you so interested in participating in this board? If you're so interested in wiping out racism- please go to message boards like stormfront or aryan nation and talk to those guys.

Why?

Because chances are, it's not the asian guys that are gonna fuck with you. It's not the asian guys that are gonna do something violent to your girl in RL. Chances are higher that it's gonna be the skinheads and the white supremacists.

You would do a lot MORE for yourself if you ALSO participated on those boards too rather than spending all your time here.

Get to know thy enemy.

[shibalsheki]

why? are you going to ban me if I choose not to respond to you?

are you going to ban me again because I don't agree with some of what you say?

Anthony/Worldview/Genetics

Have fun in this world, don't stress too much about useless crap, stress really does age people. Does it really matter when people don't agree with you on a discussion forum? Does it really bother you that some people you're never going to meet donít like you?

If I was a banning sort of mod/founder, I wouldn't ban you because you've got some wildly inflated sense of self importance. I wouldnít even ban you because youíve shown a resounding lack of reasoning ability.

AWG, Iíd probably ban you because you bore me

[cattygurl]

Hmmm I agree about skinheads not showing themselves visually in Chicage, BUT that doesn't mean Chicago isn't racist. Many urban cities are more liberal politically than the suburbs, but that doesn't mean it's not racist. You can very much be a liberal and have very racist ideals. In fact, I know of a lot of people that tell me quite the contrary.

In fact, I don't know of a non-racist place in the US, much less the planet.

Again, there's nothing wrong with racial pride. You are confusing hate and ignorance with racial pride. You can be of ANY race and have racial pride and not be a racist.

Also, why are you so hell bent of other people ACCEPTING your dating? I understand not wanting people in my intimate personal business. I understand saying that people shouldn't be discriminated for the race of their partner. I honestly don't care so fucking much about what strangers think of my personal life as to ask complete strangers to be accepting of what I do. It's one thing to ask people to mind their own business and it's another thing to ask people for acceptance. The first should be a right to a degree- the latter needs to be earned.

I'm actually not frustrated with you at all. I think you probably mean well, but just because you mean well doesn't mean you are making sense or your posts are relevant/appropriate.

[kunte]

AWG= Anthony/Worldview/Genetics= AVERAGE WHITE GUY.

what a cracker. :lol:

[kunte]

how interesting that one very average cracker with his typical cracker views on race and racism has garnered so many responses from the yellow participants. but this is what cracker males like to do. turn relevant discussions about race and racism to that of his cracker self and comfort. what a cracker.

and if the two non-cracker crackers on this board ain't gonna convince this cracker about the term cracker, what makes the yellows think they are? what a cracker.

has the cracker broke out the "my gf/bf/hello kitty/puka lover is asian" line yet? what a cracker.

[xian]

Hmmm I agree about skinheads not showing themselves visually in Chicage, BUT that doesn't mean Chicago isn't racist. Many urban cities are more liberal politically than the suburbs, but that doesn't mean it's not racist. You can very much be a liberal and have very racist ideals. In fact, I know of a lot of people that tell me quite the contrary.

In fact, I don't know of a non-racist place in the US, much less the planet.

Again, there's nothing wrong with racial pride. You are confusing hate and ignorance with racial pride. You can be of ANY race and have racial pride and not be a racist.

Also, why are you so hell bent of other people ACCEPTING your dating? I understand not wanting people in my intimate personal business. I understand saying that people shouldn't be discriminated for the race of their partner. I honestly don't care so fucking much about what strangers think of my personal life as to ask complete strangers to be accepting of what I do. It's one thing to ask people to mind their own business and it's another thing to ask people for acceptance. The first should be a right to a degree- the latter needs to be earned.

I'm actually not frustrated with you at all. I think you probably mean well, but just because you mean well doesn't mean you are making sense or your posts are relevant/appropriate.

The law enforcement in Chicago (my beloved grandfather included) are some of the most racist assholes around. The way I, my students and my friends and collegues have been treated simply on the basis of race tends to demolish AWG's "real city kid" credibility.

Ironically, one of my students freestyled today, "I'd rather meet a skinhead than CPD."

[Catatonic]

Hmmm I agree about skinheads not showing themselves visually in Chicage, BUT that doesn't mean Chicago isn't racist. Many urban cities are more liberal politically than the suburbs, but that doesn't mean it's not racist. You can very much be a liberal and have very racist ideals. In fact, I know of a lot of people that tell me quite the contrary.

Sometimes there is more racism in the so-called liberal areas due to the fact that there are more minorities. In places where there are only a couple of AA, the majority (most often white) have little to fear or hate.

It is not uncommon to find more racists attacks in places where AA communities have grown. There was a recent article in the NY Times about parts of "liberal" California which have become hotbeds for skinheads and white supremacists who blame minorities for "polluting" California.

[Le Sheng Liu]

The terms cracker, hillbilly, redneck, honky, etc are all names referring to the stereotype of white people in the South or Midwest as trailer park trash, fucking their cousins, living on farms in raggety overalls drinking beer on their porch 24/7 with a piece of hay between their lips. I'm not equating the historical and social impact of Asians being called chinamen or gooks or Africans being called niggers with white people being called crackers. But it's still a racial stereotype. I wouldn't suggest we use it, but I'll leave that up to the discretion of our white members. Up until now, I wasn't even aware that there were non-Asian folks on this messageboard.

[Pimp Kim Chee]

The terms cracker, hillbilly, redneck, honky, etc are all names referring to the stereotype of white people in the South or Midwest as trailer park trash, fucking their cousins, living on farms in raggety overalls drinking beer on their porch 24/7 with a piece of hay between their lips.

DAMN, I COULDNT HAVE WROTE DAT BETTER MYSELF.

[KeJia Sista]

because i like the discussions here. why would i want to try to talk sense into white racists? those people are a lost cause. You guys on the other hand are more fun to talk to, and don;t seem to have so much racial pride. i dont see you gus talking about racial purity (althpugh its evident in peoples angerness towards IR dating)

Im not mad people dont agree with me, just frustrated. prolly as frustrated as you are at me. its ok though.

why dont u goto those forums and talk to them? lol they are stupid and beyond hope imo.

Thats one of the privileges of being White, that you can spend time where you "have fun" and not feel the urge to work on eliminating racism where it counts most.

Why would you want to talk sense into White racists? Because if you are really our comrade; it would bother you that they denounce us, that they uphold institutional and social racism; that in some cases, they kill us.

That many of them will go to war simply because the people they fight look like us. And then they come home and police our communities.

This is why Amerika is the way it is; because so many White people do not do the work in their communities (or even in their own families); the work that we cannot do for them.

Ke Jia

[Logain]

The term "cracker" came from the slaves who referred to their overseers. Whenever they were whipped it made a loud "crack" sound. Hence the word "cracker".

Being black and i've used the word before quite alot but a few years ago i stopped. I see alot of people making Chris Rock and King of the Hill references but I don't think just because there are people out there who find it funny that it should be acceptable. The term "nigger" used to be thrown around alot in the old days by whites and most people, including some blacks im sure, didn't have much of a problem with it. But there were still alot who did. There are people today who still go around saying "nigger" but deny using it racistly because they're just using it to describe low-class blacks, not all of them. But there are alot of people who still have a problem with it. Just as you guys say "Cracka" or "Cracker" and only mean for it to represent a certain group of whites doesn't necessarily mean that is how it's going to be percieved. 10 different people can say the word "nigga" and have 10 completely different meanings behind it. I'm not saying that saying words like these are sins and will condemn you as a racist for life, but I just decided myself not to use racial deragatory terms against anyone since i can't stand hearing them directed at me.

[AngryEthiopian]

The term "cracker" came from the slaves who referred to their overseers. Whenever they were whipped it made a loud "crack" sound. Hence the word "cracker".

Being black and i've used the word before quite alot but a few years ago i stopped. I see alot of people making Chris Rock and King of the Hill references but I don't think just because there are people out there who find it funny that it should be acceptable. The term "nigger" used to be thrown around alot in the old days by whites and most people, including some blacks im sure, didn't have much of a problem with it. But there were still alot who did. There are people today who still go around saying "nigger" but deny using it racistly because they're just using it to describe low-class blacks, not all of them. But there are alot of people who still have a problem with it. Just as you guys say "Cracka" or "Cracker" and only mean for it to represent a certain group of whites doesn't necessarily mean that is how it's going to be percieved. 10 different people can say the word "nigga" and have 10 completely different meanings behind it. I'm not saying that saying words like these are sins and will condemn you as a racist for life, but I just decided myself not to use racial deragatory terms against anyone since i can't stand hearing them directed at me.

I'm black and I completely agree. Just like I don't get it when my asian friends call each other Gook. :roll: It's all ignorance IMO.

This is why Amerika is the way it is; because so many White people do not do the work in their communities (or even in their own families); the work that we cannot do for them.
Right on! If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem. I hate it when white people proclaim to hate racism but don't mind using white priviledge to their benefit. Or they don't call out racist assholes for being ignorant just because they don't want to face the issue. White people are the very ones who can afford to ignore it because it effects them the least. Minorities cannot afford that, but we need whites to fight with and for us.

[Dialectic]

If anyone wants a short version of our justification, this is it:

"You stop giving my colored ass high blood pressure, I'll stop calling you cracker."

It's a CELEBRATION, bitches.