Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The backlash effect: basically, if you're part of an oppressed group, you have a right to give your oppressor a taste of their own medicine, to an extent, perhaps as payback. If they complain they are told they are whining, so:
* non-whites can be racist towards whites
* women can be sexist to men
* fat people can make fun of skinny people
etc
Wouldn't you say this is true? Do you think there's an element of institutionalised revenge almost in this? I know that calling a white person a 'cracker' doesn't have the same historical punch behind it, but should be be more serious about enforcing one consistent standard for all, or should we give some groups a free pass/more slack?
Last edited by The Postman; 06-08-2014 at 06:25 PM..
The backlash effect: basically, if you're part of an oppressed group, you have a right to give your oppressor a taste of their own medicine, to an extent, perhaps as payback. If they complain they are told they are whining, so:
* non-whites can be racist towards
* women can be sexist to men
* fat people can make fun of skinny people
etc
Wouldn't you say this is true? Do you think there's an element of institutionalised revenge almost in this? I know that calling a white person a 'cracker' doesn't have the same historical punch behind it, but should be be more serious about enforcing one consistent standard for all, or should we give some groups a free pass/more slack?
Maybe.....but, more to the point....the hate is spreading...fast.
The backlash effect: basically, if you're part of an oppressed group, you have a right to give your oppressor a taste of their own medicine, to an extent, perhaps as payback. If they complain they are told they are whining, so:
* non-whites can be racist towards
* women can be sexist to men
* fat people can make fun of skinny people
etc
Wouldn't you say this is true? Do you think there's an element of institutionalised revenge almost in this? I know that calling a white person a 'cracker' doesn't have the same historical punch behind it, but should be be more serious about enforcing one consistent standard for all, or should we give some groups a free pass/more slack?
Institutionalized revenge is what most people envision when they fight for what they feel is "equality". When you work to justify racism against certain groups of people because of something that happened to a different group decades ago you're looking for revenge, plain and simple.
IDK, "cracker" is considered pretty insulting. I don't think any of my black friends would address a white person they didn't know well as a cracker unless they were looking for a fight. In that sense it's analogous to the N-word; if the N-word essentially communicates "you're no better than a slave", "cracker" communicates "you're no better than a slave owner" (i.e. cracker of whips.)
IDK, "cracker" is considered pretty insulting. I don't think any of my black friends would address a white person they didn't know well as a cracker unless they were looking for a fight. In that sense it's analogous to the N-word; if the N-word essentially communicates "you're no better than a slave", "cracker" communicates "you're no better than a slave owner" (i.e. cracker of whips.)
Yes, if the 'n' word is not acceptable than I don't think cracker should be, but I'm saying whites generally weren't oppressed, enslaved, lynched. The word 'cracker' did not generally spew with hatred and sometimes even murderous intent. I'm not saying it makes it okay at all though, but some might, or not take in seriously in comparison.
Yes, if the 'n' word is not acceptable than I don't think cracker should be, but I'm saying whites generally weren't oppressed, enslaved, lynched. The word 'cracker' did not generally spew with hatred and sometimes even murderous intent. I'm not saying it makes it okay at all though, but some might, or not take in seriously in comparison.
The backlash effect: basically, if you're part of an oppressed group, you have a right to give your oppressor a taste of their own medicine, to an extent, perhaps as payback. If they complain they are told they are whining, so:
* non-whites can be racist towards whites
* women can be sexist to men
* fat people can make fun of skinny people
etc
Wouldn't you say this is true? Do you think there's an element of institutionalised revenge almost in this? I know that calling a white person a 'cracker' doesn't have the same historical punch behind it, but should be be more serious about enforcing one consistent standard for all, or should we give some groups a free pass/more slack?
Imagine that... my ancestors weren't even in this country but the hate has been passed. Lets call it generational hate. So sad that people still to this day have such a heavy hateful heart even though they didn't experience it. Your parents did you no favors.
Is everyone taking note? This is what a "half" black president, who's ancestors did not experience slavery contributed to the U.S.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
