The term "cracker" [Archive]

unfriendly

18th April 2011, 12:08

Very quickly; OT:

I understand that you may take such derogatory terms lightly as a personal matter. But it is important to understand that such language creates a needlessly hostile environment for otherwise sympathetic comrades.

This isn't just to be "PC" as Americans put it. A big reason is that such words are quite literally introduced into the lexicon by the ruling class to ensure a divided worker's movement. We must fight against it where we can, including here.

So yes, please do refrain from using such terms here.

"Cracker" is not a derogatory term. "Cracker" has never described people sold as property and herded across the atlantic on slave ships, or used as propoganda against indigenous honkies who were being stripped of their lands and cultures and killed en masse, and it's never described people being scapegoated for taking our jobs or whatever stupid bullshit crackers like to use as an excuse to be racist. I will be calling white people crackers until the day I die.

I am myself a cracker and I don't have any negative connotations with the word "cracker" - it doesn't cause me a negative physical reaction like "faggot" or "he-she" or "towelhead" or "invalid" does (which people of color who deal with those oppressions have told me is basically the same.) Nobody is going to go around lynching me for being a cracker.

Finally I'm going to need some citation on your assertion that the term "cracker" was invented by the ruling class, because the ruling class is and has historically been by definition crackers and I find it really hard to believe that they'd create a word that could be used negatively about themselves, or could. When I talk shit on crackers it's not because "the ruling class" (of crackers) has tricked my feeble mind into ignoring how on the inside we're all red-blooded americans (or workers in the industrial capitalist society that crackers brought over here and violently implemented; it all sounds like white people policing other peoples' identities to me). It's because I hate crackers.

Anyone who complains about being called a cracker -- good. Maybe you'll think about that next time you call someone a ***** or say something is dumb. Probably not though because "honkey" is not a valid oppression.

As for why Obama is black it basically boils down to the fact that crackers invented race and continue to enforce it rather arbitrarily and violently. You can't just explain calmly to some racist about how you're white and laugh about the whole misunderstanding. Either you do have to worry about race or you don't.

Discrimination against the Irish was usually economic, making it more akin to classism -- basically the leftovers of racism that splash off and accidentally get on poor white people. It's not the same as experiencing racism; on the contrary plenty of Irish folks were not too excited about freeing the slaves because they didn't want to have to compete with them for jobs. If that isn't racist then nothing is.

PhoenixAsh

18th April 2011, 14:13

"Cracker" is not a derogatory term.

Yes...it really is.

"Cracker" has never described people sold as property and herded across the atlantic on slave ships, or used as propoganda against indigenous honkies who were being stripped of their lands and cultures and killed en masse, and it's never described people being scapegoated for taking our jobs or whatever stupid bullshit crackers like to use as an excuse to be racist. I will be calling white people crackers until the day I die.THAT is not a prerequisite for a term being derogatory. I you do not understand what derogatory means...I suggest you look it up.

I am myself a cracker and I don't have any negative connotations with the word "cracker" - it doesn't cause me a negative physical reaction like "faggot" or "he-she" or "towelhead" or "invalid" does (which people of color who deal with those oppressions have told me is basically the same.) Nobody is going to go around lynching me for being a cracker. I do..if you are going to stereotype me as a slaver or a proponent of slavery simply by the color of my skin I take offense.

And if you use it as the food-type of word...I assume you would also not have a problem with anybody calling a black person chocolaty...also solely based on the color of somebodies skin?

When I talk shit on crackers it's not because "the ruling class" (of crackers) has tricked my feeble mind into ignoring how on the inside we're all red-blooded americans (or workers in the industrial capitalist society that crackers brought over here and violently implemented; it all sounds like white people policing other peoples' identities to me). It's because I hate crackers.I am not a red blooded American....and you are engaging in exactly the same behavious by introducing words which...very similarly...are used to descibe people based on their skin colour and thereby diminishing their individual identity and thoughts to a racial slur.

Anyone who complains about being called a cracker -- good. Maybe you'll think about that next time you call someone a ***** or say something is dumb. Probably not though because "honkey" is not a valid oppression.It is not? Because on an induvidual level it definately is. And since we are all induviduals here I suggest you take your racial labels somewhere else.

As for why Obama is blackObama is black because of hereditary melanin levels in his skin. I am white for the very same reason. Its not because anybody invented race. But because he is born with a gentic deposition towards high melonine levels. His fenotypical appearance amkes certain groups identify with him more than others simply because of this fact. Do not act like black people not consider Obama to be black. There is no shortage of people categorising others based on the color of their skin in any group.

it basically boils down to the fact that crackers invented race and continue to enforce it rather arbitrarily and violently. You can't just explain calmly to some racist about how you're white and laugh about the whole misunderstanding. Either you do have to worry about race or you don't."Crackers" invented race? you mean thoughout history there has never be a non white culture which differentiated between skin color or ethnic stereotypes to suggest they were superior to others? Perhaps a renewed course in history should do wonders for your lack of knowledge.

you also seem to ignore that there are also various racial supremacists from different "races" than "white" people.

Now...I completely agree that race is a social construct being used by any group who wants to somehow depict themselves as superior. But that in no way means that "crackers" invented the concept or are the only ones using it...they are however more succesful in their (also conquered) parts of the world of perpetuating and exploiting the notion.

Discrimination against the Irish was usually economic, making it more akin to classism -- basically the leftovers of racism that splash off and accidentally get on poor white people. I disagree....it was also social.

It's not the same as experiencing racism; on the contrary plenty of Irish folks were not too excited about freeing the slaves because they didn't want to have to compete with them for jobs. If that isn't racist then nothing is.Just because you are an oppressed minority does not mean you can not be a racist bastard.

You are propegating the winner takes all definition of racism based on quantity. Only the mosty oppressed "race" can claim racism being used against them. I reject that notion entirely...because it is...well...racist. What about the chinese for example? They where less oppressed than black people...but yet they face racism. Take Surinam for instance...

You had the indiginous population, black slaves, mulats, chinese, people from Java, hindu's...they all faced different levels of racism...
And today it is NOT wise to wander through certain parts of Paramaribo when you are white...simply because you are white; rape and sexual assault against white girls is justified because they are all considered whores who feel entitled and are asking for it...because they are white; in some shops you are required to pay extra for the service because when you are white you can afford it....and people will not talk to you...because you are white.

Now...thats racism as well.

Where on the scale of oppression you are does not mean that racism is not racism.

You are confusing institutionalised racism with racism in itself.

And yes...that means you can be confronted by racism even if your skin colour puts you in the same category of the oppressor. And yes...that means you can be confronted with racism even if your skin colour is the same as the category of the oppressor by a person belonging to an oppressed group.

If you want a society free of devision made on ethnicity and skin colour...you do NOT go about it by introducing new words or propagating old ones to do exactly that.

hatzel

18th April 2011, 14:31

Yeah serious everybody stop saying 'cracker', yeah? Particularly if it's going to involve saying "I am myself a cracker and I don't have any negative connotations with the word [...] As for why Obama is black it basically boils down to the fact that crackers invented race and continue to enforce it rather arbitrarily and violently" Pretty strange thing to be proud of...:bored: Though of course it makes perfect sense that a self-proclaimed 'cracker' will be continuing to enforce the baseless invention of race rather arbitrarily by calling all white people 'crackers', as if they are, in fact, a distinct group. Complete idiocy. And that's without any claim that it's probably as much a classist term as it is a racist term, but I dunno, because I'm not American and we don't have stupid words like that over here, so I'm not 100% sure what it means :thumbup:

unfriendly

18th April 2011, 23:36

Yes...it really is.

THAT is not a prerequisite for a term being derogatory. I you do not understand what derogatory means...I suggest you look it up.

Okay, lemme rephrase. The term cracker is so minimally derogatory I don't give a flying fuck.

I do..if you are going to stereotype me as a slaver or a proponent of slavery simply by the color of my skin I take offense.

I just said outright that I don't care if white people take offense. Get used to it because people who aren't white like yourself have to deal with being stereotyped every moment of every day.

And if you use it as the food-type of word...I assume you would also not have a problem with anybody calling a black person chocolaty...also solely based on the color of somebodies skin?

Not if it weren't for, you know, racism. Because I am white calling a black person "chocolate" has a lot more power than someone calling either of us a cracker. You as a white person not being conscious of the power your words have over people of color is not okay.

I am not a red blooded American....and you are engaging in exactly the same behavious by introducing words which...very similarly...are used to descibe people based on their skin colour and thereby diminishing their individual identity and thoughts to a racial slur.

I am very pale; it is my skin to describe. as I said above people of color have to deal with having their individual identities diminished to a racial slur every moment of every day so don't act like you're special. I'll note also that you don't seem to be similarly outraged by, you know, ACTUAL RACISM.

"Crackers" invented race? you mean thoughout history there has never be a non white culture which differentiated between skin color or ethnic stereotypes to suggest they were superior to others? Perhaps a renewed course in history should do wonders for your lack of knowledge.

I don't think I can claim to factually know that, but I can claim to factually know that none of those groups of people have literally taken over the world the way white people have.

you also seem to ignore that there are also various racial supremacists from different "races" than "white" people.

Because there's such an insignificant number that it doesn't matter. I really love that in a discussion on racism you've managed to get more offended by the Nation of Islam than the PVV. The Nation of Islam is no threat to anybody. The PVV, on the other hand...

Just because you are an oppressed minority does not mean you can not be a racist bastard.

Again, not the problem. As a white person who lives in downtown Oakland and has explored plenty and plenty of other black neighborhoods just about the most "racism" I've had to deal with was one aggressive panhandler. When I told this aggressive panhandler that I couldn't afford my medicine, they assumed I was HIV positive and promised to keep me in their prayers.

I somehow doubt that a person of color who went around exploring all-white neighborhoods would have gotten off so easy.

You are propegating the winner takes all definition of racism based on quantity. Only the mosty oppressed "race" can claim racism being used against them. I reject that notion entirely...because it is...well...racist. What about the chinese for example? They where less oppressed than black people...but yet they face racism. Take Surinam for instance...

You had the indiginous population, black slaves, mulats, chinese, people from Java, hindu's...they all faced different levels of racism...
And today it is NOT wise to wander through certain parts of Paramaribo when you are white...simply because you are white; rape and sexual assault against white girls is justified because they are all considered whores who feel entitled and are asking for it...because they are white; in some shops you are required to pay extra for the service because when you are white you can afford it....and people will not talk to you...because you are white.

Now...thats racism as well.

I'm not claiming a hierarchy of oppressions. I'm claiming that being white is not an oppression because everything about whiteness is celebrated in this society, your individuality will never be taken away by your white skin and when it is it's uncommon enough that you'll always have the energy to write up multi-paragraph responses about how racist that is because it's not a constant thing for you.

As for your Surinam example, I agree that it's absolutely dripping in some of the most virulent forms of racism, but it's you being racist. Somehow I doubt you've ever been a white girl in Paramaribo, and judging by the fact that the Netherlands colonized Suriname in the first place, you've probably been absolutely flooded in racist shit about Suriname so excuse me if I don't take what you say about it at face value.

I'd like to point out that this is a great example of the power that white people have over people of color. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who read your post and just kept reading without realizing how racist it was; hell I'm sure you said it without realizing how racist it was. Check your privilege when you go around talking total bullshit on people of color.

People have told me similar things about neighborhoods of Oakland that I *have* been a white girl in and I assure you there aren't scary people of color lurking around every corner just to rape me. On the contrary, even when I was in a jail in downtown Baltimore, the cismen of color I was locked up with (I am trans and therefore went to the men's jail) by and large were extremely sympathetic towards me to the point where a stranger promised to bail me out as soon as he was bailed out.

I, again, doubt that a person of color in a mostly white jail (although the idea of a "mostly white jail" is so implausible as to border on hilarious) would have gotten off so easy.

Where on the scale of oppression you are does not mean that racism is not racism.

You are confusing institutionalised racism with racism in itself.

"Institutionalised racism" exists, but crackers enforce it more or less every step of the way. It's not like these "institutions" exist devoid of any human input. The problem is that most of that human input comes from crackers.

If you want a society free of devision made on ethnicity and skin colour...you do NOT go about it by introducing new words or propagating old ones to do exactly that.

I would like to re-iterate that it's your white ass creating and enforcing those divisions like in the Paramaribo bullshit above.

And that's without any claim that it's probably as much a classist term as it is a racist term, but I dunno, because I'm not American and we don't have stupid words like that over here, so I'm not 100% sure what it means

A cracker is a white person of any income level.

PhoenixAsh

19th April 2011, 20:05

Okay, lemme rephrase. The term cracker is so minimally derogatory I don't give a flying fuck.

Your personal opinion about how derogatory a derogatory word actually is does not in anyway make it NOT a derogatory word based on skin colour.

I just said outright that I don't care if white people take offense.spoken like a true racist. :thumbup1: Most racist do not care if people of colour take offence at their derogative racial slurs.

Get used to it because people who aren't white like yourself have to deal with being stereotyped every moment of every day.I am not getting used to that and I am not getting used to some asshole introducing some other derogatory terms on race either....because that is simply the only way to work towards a racial prejudiced free society. I am sorry you do not have the ability to understand this simple fact.

Not if it weren't for, you know, racism. Because I am white calling a black person "chocolate" has a lot more power than someone calling either of us a cracker.Not according to your own explanation above....because according to your explanation above its up to the one using the word to decide how derogative it actually is :rolleyes:

You as a white person not being conscious of the power your words have over people of color is not okay.I am very conscious about this. I am after all not the one introducing derogatory terms based on skin colour.

I am very pale; it is my skin to describe. as I said above people of color have to deal with having their individual identities diminished to a racial slur every moment of every day so don't act like you're special.What fucked up argument is this? Because it happens to others we can now do it on to you? Serious?

In case you have failed to notice we are trying to work towards a society which is devoid of stereotyping because of the colour of anybodies skin. THe way to go about it is NOT to introduce racial slur...against any skin colour.

I'll note also that you don't seem to be similarly outraged by, you know, ACTUAL RACISM.What you do is actual racism.

But you know...NOBODY here is using derogatory terms agains black people or people of other skin colours. And since that is NOT happening here...I am not going to argue against it.

And...excuse me...somebody who has just joined in the last two weeks, using racial slur and actually defending the use of racial slur, thinking she can state what my usual mode of operation is or my political background is completely laughable.

I don't think I can claim to factually know that, but I can claim to factually know that none of those groups of people have literally taken over the world the way white people have.Right...you can factually know that and all it takes some library research, google on history and some basic understanding of the fact that the world did manage to go around for thousands of years before so called white colonisation.

But if you like to argue that some Mulsims were not racists back in the time they controlled area's larger than Europe or did not introduce ethnic laws for supremacy...go right ahead. Same goes for Asia...where people have a long, long history of racial and ethnic tolerance....India to be specific is also a nice place which has never ever discriminated against a whole group of people based on skin colour. Or perhaps it weren't the coastal tribes who sold their superflowes inland tribe slaves which they captured for their own use to the white merchants during the 15th and 16th century.

Yes...because it has always been whites who dominated the world.

And therefore whites must have invented race...and introduce this vile theory to the world. Which is not the case. Its complete bullshit. And THAT was the argument.

Because there's such an insignificant number that it doesn't matter. I really love that in a discussion on racism you've managed to get more offended by the Nation of Islam than the PVV. The Nation of Islam is no threat to anybody. The PVV, on the other hand...I do not think I mentioned the nation of Islam...now did I? Nor did anybody else. I did however mentioned the fact that other groups are racist as well. Interesting that you immediately are able to name one.

Again...we are not talking about specifics and you have no idea what I am involved in outside of the forum.

Again, not the problem. As a white person who lives in downtown Oakland and has explored plenty and plenty of other black neighborhoods just about the most "racism" I've had to deal with was one aggressive panhandler. When I told this aggressive panhandler that I couldn't afford my medicine, they assumed I was HIV positive and promised to keep me in their prayers.That does not adress the argument at all.

I somehow doubt that a person of color who went around exploring all-white neighborhoods would have gotten off so easy.Again...not adressing the argument at all.

I'm not claiming a hierarchy of oppressions. I'm claiming that being white is not an oppression because everything about whiteness is celebrated in this society, your individuality will never be taken away by your white skin and when it is it's uncommon enough that you'll always have the energy to write up multi-paragraph responses about how racist that is because it's not a constant thing for you.Right...because we do not discriminate against other white people...such as Poles, Hungarians, Tsjechs, Slovakians, etc. :rolleyes:

As for your Surinam example, I agree that it's absolutely dripping in some of the most virulent forms of racism, but it's you being racist. Riiight.

At this point I am goign to really suggest that you are a racist of an entirely different sort. The one who can not hear anything bad about non-whites because of racial guilt tripping....ascribing some super human qualities to the other races simply because they are not white....instead of realising that we are all human.

Somehow I doubt you've ever been a white girl in ParamariboYes...and the fact that I went there about three times a year with my girlfirend and her family (you know...half Chinese half Marron) in the last 8 years...I know nothing about how people express themselves about white people at all....you know...being the only white person in an extended family of more than 75 people :rolleyes:

, and judging by the fact that the Netherlands colonized Suriname in the first place, you've probably been absolutely flooded in racist shit about Suriname so excuse me if I don't take what you say about it at face value. Yeah...because all white people are racist. :laugh:

I'd like to point out that this is a great example of the power that white people have over people of color.Really? Was it? Because thats plain bullshit.

I'm sure that there are plenty of people who read your post and just kept reading without realizing how racist it was; hell I'm sure you said it without realizing how racist it was. Check your privilege when you go around talking total bullshit on people of color.And there it is...you lady....are in fact a racist.

People have told me similar things about neighborhoods of Oakland that I *have* been a white girl in and I assure you there aren't scary people of color lurking around every corner just to rape me.Did I say that? Or did I say that when it happens some people in Surinam justify that because the girl was white.

On the contrary, even when I was in a jail in downtown Baltimore, the cismen of color I was locked up with (I am trans and therefore went to the men's jail) by and large were extremely sympathetic towards me to the point where a stranger promised to bail me out as soon as he was bailed out.Good for you.

I, again, doubt that a person of color in a mostly white jail (although the idea of a "mostly white jail" is so implausible as to border on hilarious) would have gotten off so easy.Yes...because what happens to a single person disproves everything bad / realistic about an entire population :rolleyes:

The fact remains...that other groups can be racist as well. The whole point was already proven when you could name a group which was based on a generalized statement I made.

There are plenty of others. Some of them harmless others not...fact is they are all racist.

"Institutionalised racism" exists, but crackers enforce it more or less every step of the way. It's not like these "institutions" exist devoid of any human input. The problem is that most of that human input comes from crackers.Yeah...you are doing it again. Deflecting the argument. Because the argument was not you denied its existence. THe argument was you denied the fact that society is not just about institutions....and behaviour onn induvidual level can be racist against every skin colour.

I would like to re-iterate that it's your white ass creating and enforcing those divisions like in the Paramaribo bullshit above. A cracker is a white person of any income level.:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Again:

YOU are the one using racial slur....AND defending it.

syndicat

19th April 2011, 20:28

bricolage

19th April 2011, 20:33

The Douche

19th April 2011, 20:55

I have never in my life met somebody who was actually offended by terms like "cracker" or "honkey" that wasn't racist as fuck.

I have only ever heard these terms even used in a way to describe really bourgeois (or bougegois-minded) people, as in "that racist, cracker-ass...", and the term carries absolutely no weight to it. Wear a tshirt that says "fuck crackers" and wear one that says "fuck niggers". Its a laughable comparrison, and the only people who are talking about "reverse racism" are fucking racists.

Apparently some people on this website still have some serious white privlidge issues to adress. (not suprised)

PhoenixAsh

19th April 2011, 21:14

Racism is racism. Nobody is talking about reverse racism.

But there really is no argument for the fact that when you introduce racial slur you are making distinctions based on skin colour. And distinctions based on skin colour are racist...pure and simple.

Now you can jump up and down about the fact that there is white privilege an that black people have it worse than white people...but that is not an issue here.

The issue here is that making distinctions based on skin colour is counter opposed to the ultimate goal we have to create an equal society...if that somehow does not register with you because you think that it does not matter to devide by skin colour because one colour is less oppressed over the other...so its actually ok to make up, use and introduce racial slurs against that groups.... you need to seriously check your goals and motivations.

The Douche

19th April 2011, 21:19

Cracker and honkey are not racial slurs. Sorry. White people just want to pretend they are so they can claim that the groups they oppress are racist towards whites.

PhoenixAsh

19th April 2011, 21:19

I have never in my life met somebody who was actually offended by terms like "cracker" or "honkey" that wasn't racist as fuck.

Really?

What a coincidence.

Because I never met anybody who voluntarily served in the military who wasn't actively opposing the leftwing movement, a class traitor and wasn't thouroughly enserviced and sympathetic to the burgeoisie imperialist fuckers who run the show.

Well...*shrug*... guess there must be a first time for everything...

I have only ever heard these terms even used in a way to describe really bourgeois (or bougegois-minded) people, as in "that racist, cracker-ass...", and the term carries absolutely no weight to it.weight or no weigth...does not mean its not divisive and stereotyping over skin colour.

And yes...as you can see...ms unfriendly there...uses it for all white people.
And that is also the only way I have heard it being used.

Wear a tshirt that says "fuck crackers" and wear one that says "fuck niggers". Its a laughable comparrison, and the only people who are talking about "reverse racism" are fucking racists. Its not reverse racism...its racism. Plain and simple racism. Perhaps it is. Then again...does not make it any less of a racial slur.

The Douche

19th April 2011, 21:31

PhoenixAsh

19th April 2011, 21:33

Cracker and honkey are not racial slurs. Sorry. White people just want to pretend they are so they can claim that the groups they oppress are racist towards whites.

yes...they really are racial slurs. They are used to describe people of a distinct skin colour.

The term cracker is specifically used in modern vernacular to describe ppor white people from rural US and white people in general. Its meant to serve as an indicator that the person to whom it is refering is considered to be a propegator of slavery or the one who is enslaving.

Honkey has different explanations. But is again used specifically against white people because of either the origins of the word from the original language of the slaves which indicates a person of red skin or from whore visiting white people.

PhoenixAsh

19th April 2011, 21:34

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

see...

The Douche

19th April 2011, 21:38

see...

I do see you talking about a totally irrelevant issue in order to call attention away from your latent racism. I do see you ignoring the historical precedent of ex-soldiers participating in revolution, and ignoring the fact that in the US there are whole organizations of anti-war/anti-imperialist veterans.

But do carry on with your complaints about how racist black people are and the way that they're keeping the white man down.

PhoenixAsh

19th April 2011, 22:01

I do see you talking about a totally irrelevant issue in order to call attention away from your latent racism. I do see you ignoring the historical precedent of ex-soldiers participating in revolution, and ignoring the fact that in the US there are whole organizations of anti-war/anti-imperialist veterans.

Draw your attention to your own words: ex-soldiers. veterans. (and I will come back to those later to show you the relevance)

Also would like to draw your attention to: I never met

Either way I did not not say they did not exist...and the argument as used to show how full of shit your little bullshit remark was about I never met a white person who was not offended thay was not a racist.

nor did I try to deflect anything...not only because I am not the one defending racial slurs and introduce words to distinguish based on skin colour but also because I clearly see myself in that very same post adressing the issue aswell as in the consecutive post
You...on the other hand...are not adressing the issue with argument but merely by using blanket statements.

But do carry on with your complaints about how racist black people are and the way that they're keeping the white man down.I am saying that people of any colour have the propensity and the groups who claim racial supremacy....after the initial OP I reacted to claimed otherwise stating white people invented the concept of race and made it appear like white people are in fact the only racists on the face of this planet. You do not hear me complaining about it.

But since we are revolutionary left and strive towards a gender and race free society...I think it is important to actually put our money where our mouths are and start implementing that by not using words that are derogatory to anybody or make distinctions on race or gender....nor allow anybody of any race or gender to do the same.

I however do not think you are that advanced to understand the concept that gender free means gender free and no racial devide means no racial devide.

I do not really think you understand either since you are still voluntarily enlisted and are neither an ex-soldier or a veteran but are actually still working in and for the imperialist cause...voluntarily.

I do not much care about that, thats your own choice and morality...but claiming that you may or may not one day become an ex-soldier to join a revolution or a vetrean opposing the very work you are stilll doing daily and therefore are actively supporting does make it kind of obvious that you are not yet prepared to accept that our ideologies should have consequences for the way we conduct ourselves towards others and each other.

But hey...apparantly for you its ok to use devisionary words based on skin colour because obviously they hurt less than other words....just like its ok to keep on working for imperialism :thumbup1:

The Douche

19th April 2011, 22:08

Cool post full of irrelevant personal insults bro. There are plenty of people on this website who know my politics are legitimate and sincere, and plenty of people who know me in real life and know the same.

You don't like the fact that you have unadressed issues with white privilege, and so you're trying to point out the inequeties of other people on an internet message board. The reality of living in this world, and having white privilege means that it has to be confronted, I have issues with it too, and especially have issues with male privilege, I can admit when I do things wrong, analyse things and make reasonable choices in line with my philosophy. Obviously you can't.

Enjoy your thread.

bricolage

19th April 2011, 22:09

fucking crackers.

unfriendly

19th April 2011, 22:53

Your assumption is that something racist can happen to white people. It does not work that way.

I am prejudiced against white people. I am also, because all white people are racist (I don't know why you're laughing about this because it's fucking true), racist in that I carry many unanalysed assumptions about people of color.

And I wish my intentional malice towards white people was as harmful or destructive as my accidental malice towards people of color. Really, I do.

It's not.

PhoenixAsh

19th April 2011, 23:31

Cool post full of irrelevant personal insults bro. There are plenty of people on this website who know my politics are legitimate and sincere, and plenty of people who know me in real life and know the same.

I therefore did not start the personal insults. You should reread your own post if you are so insulted by mine.

I have not questioned your ideological position nor it legitimacy. I do however think it is evident you do not yet live your ideological position.

Now personally,...as was already apparant from the other thread in which I certainly somewhat defended people in the left being partt of the military...I do not give a hoot. But when you start to flame...you should expect it back in kind.

You don't like the fact that you have unadressed issues with white privilege

I do not have undaressed issues with white privilege.

and so you're trying to point out the inequeties of other people on an internet message board.

I was in fact pointing out the hypocray of your own initial post in this thread in respect to the reality of your ideology compared to the reality of yor actions.

The reality of living in this world, and having white privilege means that it has to be confronted

Yes. and every other form of racism and supremacy should be confronted as well. so when somebody starts to use terminology which is specifically used as derogatory against a specific skin colour we should oppose that....because its our goal, as you should very well know, to bring about a society free of stereotyping and stigmaticing based on skin colour.

I have issues with it too, and especially have issues with male privilege,

I do not care about your issues.

I can admit when I do things wrong, analyse things and make reasonable choices in line with my philosophy. Obviously you can't.

The only person here defening any form of racism is you...and several other posters. Clearly you think it is not a problem to use derogatory terms designed agaist a specific skin colour. You do not see this a racist and you somehow have the gaul to say I have a problem with getting things in line with my ideology?

Because in this whole thread you have not offered one single argument that actually adressed anything other than making blanket statements dismissing the simpe fact that you are defending a word which is specifically ment to characterize based on skin colour.

Because that is exactly what the word does.

And as such...it is completely not in line with any of the goals we have and should uphold.

Nor have you offered any contentual arguments to somehow provide any form of proof other than the white provilege mantra that my arguments are somehow invalid or untrue.

But somebody continuing to voluntarily serve...explaining how he can see that he is wrong and make reasonable choices is somehow illustrative of how you miss the point completely.

Tim Finnegan

20th April 2011, 00:53

Because I never met anybody who voluntarily served in the military who wasn't actively opposing the leftwing movement, a class traitor and wasn't thouroughly enserviced and sympathetic to the burgeoisie imperialist fuckers who run the show.
An ex-soldier at my work was saying, just the other day, that Afghanistan and Iraq were both "pointless wars" and that they were just being fought "for the oil". I don't see how perceptive observations such as those slot into the sort of sycophancy you imagine.

PhoenixAsh

20th April 2011, 00:55

An ex-soldier at my work was saying, just the other day, that Afghanistan and Iraq were both "pointless wars" and that they were just being fought "for the oil". I don't see how perceptive observations such as those slot into the sort of sycophancy you imagine.

again...reread the entire statement in its context. Then reread the statement itself.

then realise again: ex-soldier

here I'll help you:

I never met anybody who voluntarily served in the military who wasn't actively opposing the leftwing movement, a class traitor and wasn't thouroughly enserviced and sympathetic to the burgeoisie imperialist fuckers who run the show.

then realise this was a response to this asinine ad hominem:

I have never in my life met somebody who was actually offended by terms like "cracker" or "honkey" that wasn't racist as fuck

Dumb

20th April 2011, 00:59

hatzel

20th April 2011, 01:01

Seriously, people. I said it in one post referring essentially to myself, got dinged for it, and said I'd stop it. Case closed. End of story. The fact that anybody is even talking about this is, in a word, preposterous.To be honest the discussion was more about that other guy, unfriendly. We've already forgotten you ever said anything :lol:

PhoenixAsh

20th April 2011, 01:04

Seriously, people. I said it in one post referring essentially to myself, got dinged for it, and said I'd stop it. Case closed. End of story. The fact that anybody is even talking about this is, in a word, preposterous.

believe it or not...but this is not about you...you were hardly the only one.

Its about some people on the forum actually apologizing and advocating the use of terminology which is derogatory based on skin colour and are effectively advocating racist terminology being used....in other words propagating behaviour which runs counter opposed to the goals of communism/anarchism/socialism and every revolutionary leftwing movement.

Dumb

20th April 2011, 01:04

Oh, cool! Seeing this thread at all just felt at first like a monument to my using "a racial slur," which...yeah...you can see how that wouldn't be much fun. :lol:

PhoenixAsh

20th April 2011, 01:05

To be honest the discussion was more about that other guy, unfriendly. We've already forgotten you ever said anything :lol:

I believe unfriendly mentioned she was a she. But I could have been mistaken.

edit

I *have* been a white girl in and I assure you there aren't scary people of color lurking around every corner just to rape me. On the contrary, even when I was in a jail in downtown Baltimore, the cismen of color I was locked up with (I am trans and therefore went to the men's jail) by and large were extremely sympathetic towards me to the point where a stranger promised to bail me out as soon as he was bailed out.

genstrike

20th April 2011, 01:29

Stupid crackers need to kill the whitey in their heads

Dumb

20th April 2011, 01:34

believe it or not...but this is not about you...you were hardly the only one.

I just saw a few of my posts at the top of the thread and felt a bit put on the spot as a result; no problem now.

The way I look at it, the use of this kind of terminology is the prerogative of the people it's meant to target. Because of the history behind n-, I don't see why African Americans would want to call one another that, but they (and they alone) can go right on ahead.

As for "cracker," that term doesn't have nearly as heavy a history behind it. While I wouldn't use the term in reference to a specific individual who objected to its use, I don't give a damn if somebody uses it to describe me. You want to call me "cracker"? Call me "cracker." I call myself that all the time.

Given that nobody lynched X-thousand caucasians while yelling "CRACKER!," there's certainly room in society for the ironic use of the term. For me personally, given the privileged status that caucasians have been afforded historically (and currently), my self-deprecating use of "cracker" is intended to make a minor, platitudinous statement on race: "I know that in our society, race remains a factor, and it's stupid."

Maybe that's not the most effective way to make that statement, but it's one that my real-life friends and I have always found amusing.

hatzel

20th April 2011, 01:37

Stupid crackers need to kill the whitey in their headsAnd the only way for 'crackers' to kill the 'whitey' in their heads is for them to stop calling themselves 'cracker' or 'whitey'...last time I checked, as long as a 'cracker' is calling himself, as well as the rest of his fellow whites, by virtue of their being white, a 'cracker', then he's actually going against what you just said. Strange that...

Also, can the North Americans tell me whether the Wikipedia article on the term is accurate? because I don't really know the contemporary usage. I mean...it's clear from their claims that it has obviously discriminatory origins, but I don't know whether the meaning now is the same as it was 50, 100, 200+ years ago :confused:

727Goon

20th April 2011, 01:53

you might think "cracker" is a derogatory term for whites. that's not how i see it. a "cracker" is a white person who has a certain mentality, thinks they're better than people of color because of their light skin. whites don't have to be "crackers" if they don't adopt the cracker mentality.

This. Cracker is just short for whip-cracker, I use it to refer to racist white bourgie fucks who perpetuate the white power system and working class whites who are racist. If you dont want to get called a cracker dont be a cracker.

28350

20th April 2011, 01:54

Of course cracker is a racial slur.
The difference between the words cracker and nigger is that one carries the historical (and current) weight of oppression.

Dumb

20th April 2011, 01:55

This. Cracker is just short for whip-cracker, I use it to refer to racist white bourgie fucks who perpetuate the white power system and working class whites who are racist. If you dont want to get called a cracker dont be a cracker.

I clicked "thanks" for this post. Yes, I am that self-loathing. :thumbup:

727Goon

20th April 2011, 01:58

Billy cried "reverse racism" when the black boy called him a 'cracker' since it was not acceptable for Billy to call the boy 'nigger'. It's hard to understand how Billy was offended since no ancestor of his had even been called a 'cracker' as he was savagely whipped by a black man who owned him.

I've heard this quote brought up before in the whole "reverse racism" debate and it pisses me off for a couple reasons. First of all it makes it look as though racism is something of the past and thats just something historical and not really a problem any more. Second it makes it seem like people are responsible for what their ancestors did, white people being racist isn't wrong because of what their ancestors did.

Jimmie Higgins

20th April 2011, 02:08

I only read about half of this thread, so sorry if someone mentioned these arguments and I missed it:

On the word itself: I heard that the term comes from "whip cracker" and in this sense I don't really have a problem if someone calls their white boss a cracker or a asshole cop a cracker.

Is it racism: don't be silly, there is no anti-white racism in North America. There is not one example of systemic oppression of white people - for their race, that is - by non-white people to defend the status-quo.

Should we condone the use: not particularly, singling out race like that is divisive and doesn't really help us in anyway. Most of us want to see class unity and see that anger directed more sharply at the ruling class. But like I said if a white elite or defender of the system is called a "cracker" or "honky" or even a "redneck" (which I find to be kind of elitist because it usually means poor whites), I wouldn't really care or try and make an argument against it's use.

727Goon

20th April 2011, 02:15

PhoenixAsh

20th April 2011, 02:20

The way I look at it, the use of this kind of terminology is the prerogative of the people it's meant to target. Because of the history behind n-, I don't see why African Americans would want to call one another that, but they (and they alone) can go right on ahead.

Yes...but this is a forum. I can not see the colour of your skin and therefore I can not judge if you are actually pretending to be white or are not....nor can I evaluate if you are black or are not.

So the trick is to refrain from any language which is derogatory based on genetic or fenotypical qualities.

As for "cracker," that term doesn't have nearly as heavy a history behind it.

that is correct.

While I wouldn't use the term in reference to a specific individual who objected to its use, I don't give a damn if somebody uses it to describe me. You want to call me "cracker"? Call me "cracker." I call myself that all the time.

I have a black friend who has similar views about the N-word. Does not mean it is not racist when I use it against him....nor does it mean not all black people are offended by the word even if its used by other black people. I also have another friend who actually takes offence at the lyrics of rap artists and jokes by comedians.

Who uses it against whom is pretty much a factor in if something is considered offensive or not. Its not the determining factor.

If you want to describe yourself as a cracker...be my guest. That is one of the reaons why I did not react against you but reacted against "unfriendly"...who explictly stated she would call white people cracker until the day she died.

Given that nobody lynched X-thousand caucasians while yelling "CRACKER!," there's certainly room in society for the ironic use of the term.

Now...thats presumably true....not in the last 100 years anyway.

But neither did people scream the word chocolaty when that happened....yet...its still racist. Why? Because it really does not matter how many people got lynched or shipped of and sold as property (until the 19th century there was white slave trade going on in the Ottoman empire btw) for a term to be racist or not. What does matter is that you make distinctions on fenotypical and ethnic traits...such as skin colour.

For me personally, given the privileged status that caucasians have been afforded historically (and currently)

depending on contex...but by and large true.

, my self-deprecating use of "cracker" is intended to make a minor, platitudinous statement on race: "I know that in our society, race remains a factor, and it's stupid." Maybe that's not the most effective way to make that statement, but it's one that my real-life friends and I have always found amusing.

Ok...I certainly agree that it is stupid that race remains a factor.

Tim Finnegan

20th April 2011, 02:26

(until the 19th century there was white slave trade going on in the Ottoman empire btw)
The issue isn't that people of one race or another was enslaved, but that a system of slavery was institutionally racialised, as in the US.

Dumb

20th April 2011, 02:28

Yes...but this is a forum. I can not see the colour of your skin and therefore I can not judge if you are actually pretending to be white or are not....nor can I evaluate if you are black or are not.

I'm quite willing to provide photographic evidence to you or anybody wanting any such evidence. I'm not into that whole "anonymity" thing...if anybody wants to steal my identity, they can have it. I've been trying to lose it for ages anyway.

PhoenixAsh

20th April 2011, 02:32

Is it racism: don't be silly, there is no anti-white racism in North America. There is not one example of systemic oppression of white people - for their race, that is - by non-white people to defend the status-quo.

Opression is not a prerequisite for the definition of racism...opression is the defining distinction between racism and institutional racism...or can be one but not its exclusive of its meanings.

Racism is the differentiating on the basis of genetic factors which constitute the concept of race. Using racial slur is derogatory based on these characteristics and deminishes the induviduality of the induvidual to the colour of his/her skin.

Should we condone the use: not particularly, singling out race like that is divisive and doesn't really help us in anyway. Most of us want to see class unity and see that anger directed more sharply at the ruling class.exactly.

But like I said if a white elite or defender of the system is called a "cracker" or "honky" or even a "redneck" (which I find to be kind of elitist because it usually means poor whites), I wouldn't really care or try and make an argument against it's use.

Honkey is derived from Xonxa which is the original language of the largest number of slaves. It means red ear.

PhoenixAsh

20th April 2011, 02:37

I'm quite willing to provide photographic evidence to you or anybody wanting any such evidence. I'm not into that whole "anonymity" thing...if anybody wants to steal my identity, they can have it. I've been trying to lose it for ages anyway.

I believe you on your word. I do not want to see any pictures or care to know any personal information about you other than generalised or anecdotal information.

Its not about stealing your identity...its about identifying you and using that information against you and the people you work with....or depending on who gets it to intimidate or actually target you for violence. Eirther by law enforcement or fascists....or other anti leftwing groups.

That was not my point.

Dumb

20th April 2011, 02:39

I believe you on your word. I do not want to see any pictures or care to know any personal information about you other than generalised or anecdotal information.

Its not about stealing your identity...its about identifying you and using that information against you and the people you work with....or depending on who gets it to intimidate or actually target you for violence. Eirther by law enforcement or fascists....or other anti leftwing groups.

That was not my point.

I was trying to be a little tongue-in-cheek there.

The Douche

20th April 2011, 03:08

then realise again: ex-soldier

So even though we're not talking about a change in my politics, I become "acceptable" in your eyes in 8 months when my enlistment ends, but right now, I am a hypocrite?

Do you think one can simply stop being in the army cause they're tired of it?:lol:

The fact is that I am an active, and open anti-imperialist, I have been involved in public anti-imperialist actions and will continue to do so. So your personal insults are baseless.

Furthermore, I do not find the terms cracker or honkey to be racist. Or even offensive, certainly not as offensive as terms like "redneck" or "white trash", and should not be compared to words like "nigger" or "kike".

You can make the case that such terms are designed to single out people of a certain race, but I disagree, and view them as terms designed to single out individuals of a certain philosophy, so I have never been called a honkey/cracker, and if I were I would laugh and certainly not take it seriously.

Lord Testicles

20th April 2011, 04:06

ITT: White people complaining about racism.

PhoenixAsh

20th April 2011, 04:13

So even though we're not talking about a change in my politics, I become "acceptable" in your eyes in 8 months when my enlistment ends, but right now, I am a hypocrite?

I have never uttered the word hypocracy...I think, I do not believe I did.......and in fact I explicitly stated I do not doubt the sincerity of your ideology....nor are you not acceptable to me now. (Nor do I see this debate as personal...nor does any argument against you or your opinion have meaning outside this debate.)

What I do see is that you entered into the debate with an ad hominem post....offering nothing but blanket statements without adressing the actual arguments and making broad assumptions.

Now...as I have shown in earlier posts...I simply responded in kind.

But you also failed to miss an important addition to what I said....selectively getting offended. I'll give you the entire quote and highlight the part I am aiming at:

Really?

What a coincidence.

Because I never met anybody who voluntarily served in the military who wasn't actively opposing the leftwing movement, a class traitor and wasn't thouroughly enserviced and sympathetic to the burgeoisie imperialist fuckers who run the show.

Well...*shrug*... guess there must be a first time for everything...

Indicating the fact that using broad sweeping assumptions based on who you have and have not met about the person you are entering a debate with kind of not really a good idea.

See....I do not question this about you:

The fact is that I am an active, and open anti-imperialist, I have been involved in public anti-imperialist actions and will continue to do so.Nor do I question your character based on my personal experience with the military....and yes...I have first hand experience with it.

So your personal insults are baseless.That was what I wanted to illustrate to you in the first place.

The whole intend...as I explained before was to show you how stupid that ad hominem of yours was with which you entered the debate.

The fact that you are personally offended by this statement should be a good indicator of how I felt when I read your post.

Furthermore, I do not find the terms cracker or honkey to be racist. Or even offensive, certainly not as offensive as terms like "redneck" or "white trash", and should not be compared to words like "nigger" or "kike".Which one is it? Either you find it offensive or not. You can not say its not offensive,..and then continue to say it is offensive but less so than other words.

You can make the case that such terms are designed to single out people of a certain race, but I disagree, and view them as terms designed to single out individuals of a certain philosophy, so I have never been called a honkey/cracker, and if I were I would laugh and certainly not take it seriously.well.....admirable...

However your personal opinion about the use of the word really does matter very little...because personal opinion does not make a word more or less derogatory or does not make it mean anything other than it means or the fact that it is very much used against white people in general.

Because this was what my post was directed against:

I will be calling white people crackers until the day I die.

And from the rest of her post you can see that she means all white people are crackers.

I also object to use derogatory terms based on race against anybody. Even if they somehow deserve it. I rather use the more correct terms based on their postion, class allegiance, or political allegiance....or use swearwords.

Describing them by racial slurs is imo propagating devision based on skin color, ethnicity or race.

But out of curiosity...how would you describe a black or Chinese CEO who not only is burgeoisie but also uses authoritarian ways to treat his employees?

PhoenixAsh

20th April 2011, 04:16

ITT: White people complaining about racism.

aha...so you admit its racism. Thank you.

Lord Testicles

20th April 2011, 04:22

aha...so you admit its racism. Thank you.

http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/9/9e/HA_HA_HA,_OH_WOW.jpg

Individual racism is not comparable with systematic racism.

JustMovement

20th April 2011, 04:35

ok being insulted by the word cracker is stupid. but since we are against dividing people up by race on principle, lets restrict the word cracker to: something that goes well with cheese

PhoenixAsh

20th April 2011, 04:49

Individual racism is not comparable with systematic racism.

Never said it was....but never the less...again...racism.

so...laugh all you want....you yourself have now designated the term twice as racist. :-)

PhoenixAsh

20th April 2011, 04:52

ok being insulted by the word cracker is stupid.

....perhaps.

personaly I do not like to be equated with:

slavers; propagators of slavery

purely because I am white.

But to each his own.

but since we are against dividing people up by race on principle, lets restrict the word cracker to: something that goes well with cheese

exactly my point.

Tim Finnegan

20th April 2011, 04:52

You're just another proddy dog with his orange balls in a big hun twist.

See? That's language that you can offended about. "Cracker" is nowt! ;)

Lord Testicles

20th April 2011, 05:00

Never said it was....but never the less...again...racism.

so...laugh all you want....you yourself have now designated the term twice as racist. :-)

Okay, but it's not like you have ever been beaten up because you are white or denied a job because you are white, or suffered abuse because you have a particular skin colour and have walked through a bigoted neighbourhood. To try and compare the racism that exists against non-whites with something trivial like the word cracker is offensive at best.

PhoenixAsh

20th April 2011, 05:01

You're just another proddy dog with his orange balls in a big hun twist.

I have no idea what you are saying here.

See? That's language that you can offended about. "Cracker" is nowt! ;)

Is it? I'll take your word for it. This is how it translates into Swahili...

Wewe tu mwingine mbwa proddy na mipira yake orange katika twist kubwa hun.

The fact that you do not think it is offensive does not make it less offensive...nor does it negate the fact that it is offensive or not.

Its a derogatory word. Its defined as a derogatory word...therefore its offensive....its entire meaning is based on it being racial slur.

PhoenixAsh

20th April 2011, 05:03

Okay, but it's not like you have ever been beaten up
because you are white

Yes...that in fact did happen...twice. Once in Holland and once in Surinam..though beaten up is a big word I did have some bruises, black eye, bloody nose and a cracked rib....on both occasions. O...and a sprained ankle.

or denied a job because you are white,That is true...I never said that I was. Nor that the term has the same weight as other words.

or suffered abuse because you have a particular skin colour and have walked through a bigoted neighbourhood. hmmm...well...I was beaten up twice for being white. If the neighborhood was bigoted I do not know. I have not stopped to ask everybody how they felt about white people. So lets say...perhaps...perhaps not.

Tim Finnegan

20th April 2011, 05:27

I have no idea what you are saying here.
Just don't go repeating in a Glasgow pub any time soon, 'kay? ;)

The fact that you do not think it is offensive does not make it less offensive...nor does it negate the fact that it is offensive or not. Its a derogatory word. Its defined as a derogatory word...therefore its offensive....its entire meaning is based on it being racial slur."Offensiveness" is a wooly liberal concept, it has no weight in radical discussion. What we care about is the extent to which the deployment of a certain term acts as a negation of liberty, and particularly the extent to which it sustains existing systems of oppression. A pissweak term like "cracker", with no weight behind it and no relationship to any system of oppression, really need not concern us any further than is necessary to note that it is impolite. (In fact, "proddy dog" and so forth don't really fulfil that criteria, given that they refer to a dominant social group. I just couldn't think of any other slurs appropriate to a Dutchman. ;))

20th April 2011, 05:43

just like we dont infract the phrase "you are a prick" as sexist(maybe for flaming), the same should apply to "cracker" imo, cause as a white person i would feel ashame talking about racism...

Manic Impressive

20th April 2011, 05:48

Hindsights said it a few times but i'll try again to see whether it gets through your thick skulls.
Calling someone a derogatory name due to the colour of their skin is unacceptable.

hatzel

20th April 2011, 10:41

Calling someone a derogatory name due to the colour of their skin is unacceptable.But but but I thought we decided it was totally acceptable to strengthen a pretty artificial racial dichotomy, one group 'the whites', one group 'the rest', as long as you do it by emphasising the distinctive (and presumably, in this case, negative) nature of 'the whites', rather than 'the rest'. Wasn't that the official party line? :confused:

tracher999

20th April 2011, 10:57

wtf man a cracker is somebody that break into computer systems ant steal information it hase nothing to do with racism ore shit

greetz:laugh:

PhoenixAsh

20th April 2011, 11:47

To try and compare the racism that exists against non-whites with something trivial like the word cracker is offensive at best.

I missed this earlier, sorry.

No...I agree that there is a distinct difference in impact. But that is not the point.

The point is that its terminology to devide based on skin colour. That simple fact is something that we should not do.

It does not matter if the term is more offensive, less offensive or if the group is currently more or less oppressed.

When you start to introduce derogatory language based on genetic or fenotypical characteristics you are crossing a line.

Its really a simple concept.

Just don't go repeating in a Glasgow pub any time soon, 'kay? ;)

I have a Scottish friend somewhere...I might give him a call. Can I expect the friendship to be over when I say that as a hello on the phone? :)

"Offensiveness" is a wooly liberal concept, it has no weight in radical discussion. What we care about is the extent to which the deployment of a certain term acts as a negation of liberty, and particularly the extent to which it sustains existing systems of oppression.What should have weight in radical discussion is the fact that we do not devide or use devisive racial slurs based on genetic and fenotypical characteristics.

Thats really all there is to it. Now you can devise a nice and complicated theory to somehow justify your use of such terms...but you might guess where I am going with this....right?

But lets analyse racial slurs:

Division on any level is reactionary and serves to further the purpose of the burgeoisie which thrives upon dividing the classes and especially the proletariat amongst itself.

Using devisive derogatory language about characteristics which are cross-class. Meaning here fore most genetic and ethnic traits (like skin colour and gender) is sustaining the divisions created within society and propagating and furthering the devisionary tactics of the burgeoisie. In effect it maintains the complicated constructs emplaced and enforced by the burgeoisie to keep the working class from uniting against its oppression.

A pissweak term like "cracker", with no weight behind it and no relationship to any system of oppression, really need not concern us any further than is necessary to note that it is impolite. (In fact, "proddy dog" and so forth don't really fulfil that criteria, given that they refer to a dominant social group. I just couldn't think of any other slurs appropriate to a Dutchman. ;))See above. Also being Dutch is IMO not an ethnic or racial characteristic.

just like we dont infract the phrase "you are a prick" as sexist(maybe for flaming), the same should apply to "cracker" imo, cause as a white person i would feel ashame talking about racism...

Right. Good for you.

I also remember the c-word being debateable over infraction worthy as being sexist...with some mods finding it so and some mod not. Unless that changed because there realy is not a list....and then you should really run a post search on the word.

The fact remains that cracker is a racial slur and that it is propagating divisions based on skin colour. You are now actually saying you as a mod are condoning divisions made on skin colour...actually perpetuating the system. :thumbup1:

This thread is an entire education how an entire group on the revolutionary left refuses to practice what it preaches....and is actually actively advocating derogatory language based on skin colour and thereby perpetuating the divisionary system.
Priceles. :laugh:

Manic Impressive

20th April 2011, 13:42

just like we dont infract the phrase "you are a prick" as sexist(maybe for flaming), the same should apply to "cracker" imo, cause as a white person i would feel ashame talking about racism...
I don't think it is the same at all. You can call anyone a prick regardless of gender. In the UK **** also is to the majority of people a term that can be used on anyone, which I acknowledge is not the same everywhere which is why the word is rightly banned here. But derogatory racial terms cannot be used against anyone the same as calling someone a prick can be, it defines one group based on the colour of their skin. Women can be pricks too.

Terms like cracker or honkey might be more socially acceptable in the US than in Europe but that doesn't make them right and fuck knows why anyone would want to copy what's socially acceptable in terms of race in the USA.

20th April 2011, 14:22

i dont know how and when such words are used, english is not my first language and frankly i saw lots of curse words inside here for the first time(this being one of them).What i had to say was that its stupid as whites talking about racism the same as its for males talking about sexism.If words have other meanings, different usage etc i cant know i am not here to give a conclusive answer on what its "correct" or not, i just made a rational conclusion of what i have seen around this forum and the rules that are set.

PhoenixAsh

20th April 2011, 23:15

@Fusberg,

I do not agree with you on both accounts. Its not stupid at all. Men do encounter sexism and gender discrimination, just as white people encounter racism. No group has a monopoly on being opressed...unless they are part of the select few in the burgeoisie...and even there you encounter different levels of freedom and servitude.

Its how the current system works. Racism is not merely an expression of the burgeoisie but it is a method of deviding the proletariat and everybody who is not in the burgeoisie.

Now...what I do agree upon is that it is not institutionalised. But look up the term Kyriarchy...which explains that society and its oppression structures are more complicated and situational than mere generalisations.

What should concern us here is that words specifically designed to be devisive and derogatory on race gender or any other genotypical and fenotypical expressions should not be used in the revolutionary left.

We do not like positive racial slurs either. We do not condone the inherrently racist view that Asian people are good in math, we do not condone the view Jews are good with money. These stereotypes are used the same way as the terms cracker, honkey or redneck are to denounce the concept of white privilege....in a supposed positive way with the dilluded intention of somehow strengthening the position of other "races". That is a dead end tactic.

Simply because it is still a generalisation based on skin colour....not on the induvidual behaviour. As such its a generalised distinction made on genetic characteristics....which qualifies the definition of racial slur.

It perpetuates a system, no matter how well intended the use of the word may be, which clearly acknowledges race as an existing social construct and acknowledges it as something that devides the proletariat. It accepts the fact that the burgeoisie tactic of devision is a legitimate one by attacking it through actively using its own strategy.

Now...some here have argued they only use it in a certain way. But that ignores the fact that the definition of the word and its common usage is not dependend on how its being used by induviduals...and the definition is still purely based on skin colour and designating sombody as being evil based not on induvidual behaviour or recognition of induviduality but based on the colour of skin.

If that carries the same weight as other derogatory terms should not even be a consideration at all. The mere fact that it is a designation based on skin colour should be enough to reject its usage in the revolutionary left...whose ultimate goal it is to throw away the silly notions of skin clour, the concept of race and gender.

We should start living up to those goals instead of making a knee jerk towards the current system which is based on devision and propagation of the supposed differences based on these social constructs.

Atehequa

21st April 2011, 00:31

Cracker :lol:

I've blurted it out from time to time, but always in an affectionate manner.

redsky

23rd April 2011, 15:35

Just to throw in a quiet new twist- "Redneck" has long been associated with peasant class whites working the woods and fields- thus the sunburn- related descriptor. And, as someone way up the line noted, it has distinct classist connotations. However, I've seen documentaries and articles which tie the term to a struggle in thesouthern Appalachians in the '20's. It seems there was a pitched battle, a culmination of some protracted strike, during which Pinkertons and such fought a near-military engagement with the Union men who, in lieu of uniforms wore red bandanas for identification. Thus- red necks. Who knows.

I've known good old boys who'd probably rather dip their feet in a chipper than acknowledge such a radical Socialist association.

Sometimes if you look at it right, in the strangest of ways you get shown the light ------- Jerome G, 1972

(right, Mr West?)

Snacsnoc

23rd April 2011, 18:49

If I recall correctly, the term cracker comes from [American] southerners calling other white people 'crackers' because of how poor they were.

syndicat

23rd April 2011, 20:57

Hindsights said it a few times but i'll try again to see whether it gets through your thick skulls.
Calling someone a derogatory name due to the colour of their skin is unacceptable.

accept a "cracker" isn't so-called just because of his skin color...he has to be racist also. that's what "cracker" means: a racist white.

The Red Next Door

23rd April 2011, 21:45

The Red Next Door

23rd April 2011, 21:49

yes...they really are racial slurs. They are used to describe people of a distinct skin colour.

The term cracker is specifically used in modern vernacular to describe ppor white people from rural US and white people in general. Its meant to serve as an indicator that the person to whom it is refering is considered to be a propegator of slavery or the one who is enslaving.

Honkey has different explanations. But is again used specifically against white people because of either the origins of the word from the original language of the slaves which indicates a person of red skin or from whore visiting white people.

Said the guy who live in a white majority country, it not racism, so stop claiming it.

Princess Luna

23rd April 2011, 23:06

Rather or not the word cracker is racist, i think the use of racial slurs should be discouraged even if they are directed against the majority. It is also rather annoying.

PhoenixAsh

24th April 2011, 01:27

accept a "cracker" isn't so-called just because of his skin color...heb has to be racist also. that's what "cracker" means: a racist white.
No that is not its definition.

PhoenixAsh

24th April 2011, 01:29

Said the guy who live in a white majority country, it not racism, so stop claiming it.

It distinguishes based on skin colour...therefore its racist. There is no argument in the majority..SA the majority is black... Means no racism?? Your argument is invalid.

syndicat

24th April 2011, 01:39

No that is not its definition.

how do you know? you live in the Netherlands. the term was coined by black Americans.

Princess Luna

24th April 2011, 01:52

how do you know? you live in the Netherlands. the term was coined by black Americans.

Cracker (pejorative)
cracker (plural crackers)
(US, pejorative, racial slur) An impoverished white person from the SE United States, originally associated with Georgia and parts of Florida; or, (by extension) white people generally. (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cracker#Etymology_2)

actually he is right

heres is what Wikipedia says about its origins

Cracker, sometimes white cracker, is a pejorative term for poor white people.[1] It is especially used for the white inhabitants of the U.S. states of Georgia and Florida (Georgia crackers and Florida crackers), but it is also used throughout the Southern United States and more widely in North America.

One theory holds that the term comes from the common diet of poor whites. According to the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, it is a term of contempt for the "poor" or "mean whites," particularly of the U.S. states of Georgia and Florida (see Georgia cracker and Florida cracker). Britannica notes that the term dates back to the American Revolution, and is derived from the cracked corn which formed their staple food.[2] (In British English "mean" is also a term for tightfistedness,[3] although in this context that is irrelevant as mean also refers to being ignoble or inferior[4]).

Yet another theory[citation needed] is that the term derives from an Elizabethan word used to describe braggarts. The original root of this is the Middle English word crack meaning "entertaining conversation" (one may be said to "crack" a joke); this term and the Gaelic spelling craic are still in use in Ireland, Scotland and Northern England. It is documented in Shakespeare's King John (1595): "What cracker is this same that deafs our ears with this abundance of superfluous breath?"

The word literally means "Lower class, cattle thief". It originated in the Irish word CRAUX, the word for the cattle handlers in a cattle raid, (the Irish national sport). Many of the people in the hills of Georgia, Tennessee and Florida were Craux centuries ago. The Scot word would be "Spree" as in a shopping spree or killing spree.

Yet another theory is that the term derives from the sound of a whip being cracked by slave owners, or because crackers are generally white in color.

Jimmie Higgins

24th April 2011, 02:44

It distinguishes based on skin colour...therefore its racist. There is no argument in the majority..SA the majority is black... Means no racism?? Your argument is invalid.

Here's the practical activist reason that this definition of racism doesn't work: The problem with this definition of racism is that it is the main one used by the right-wing to argue that racism doesn't exist or is a class-neutral form of bigotry. It is the argument made by Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck about black racism against whites and they use it not to really make a case that white people are really oppressed, but to confuse and blur the real institutional racism in this country.

Reducing "racism" to bigotry makes it easier for the "post-racism" arguments and the people who claim that not only is racism not a problem but that actually "reverse-racism" is the problem. If racism is any consideration of race regardless of the historical and social context, then a St. Patrick's day joke about you're Irish friend today is equivalent to bosses putting "No Irish need apply" signs up in 1870; then affirmative action really is "racist" as the right-wing claims; then Denesh DeSouza is a legitimate scholar on racism, not a right-wing hack making excuses for racial inequality in the US.

In short, this argument is bad for the left because it gives too much ideological ground to the right and to racists.

The theoretical reasons this definition of racism doesn't work is that race is not an absolute, so to treat racism as "anything that is based on skin color" in the abstract doesn't work because "race" is a fluid construct. Many east Asians have the same skin tone as many Europeans and are not considered white, Jewish people from Europe were persecuted AS A RACE, not as a religious group, and Irish people were not considered "white" in the civil-war era US. Yet all these groups face/faced institutionalized and systemic racism in the US.

IMO any definition of racism that is simply "race-based consideration" is useless to the left - even though I know that popularly, racism is thought to be class-neutral in this way. But in popular discourse "imperialism" means militarized aggression and the left is generally pretty good at maintaining its own specific definition of what we mean by imperialism while acknowledging that not all people hold that view of the term.

If a nonwhite person calling a white person "cracker" is racist regardless of the context of history or class, then it reduces racism to the same level as "bullying" or making fun of "goths" or "emo-kids". Sure it sucks and it hurts on an individual level, and it's even connected to the way the system divides people and keeps them competing with each-other, but it is objectively nothing like the institutionalized oppression of women or black people or whatnot in the US.

psgchisolm

24th April 2011, 03:04

Cracker where I live. In the south is used by people black and white to call white people regardless of class or money. I've heard more white people than black people using it weirdly. It's kinda like hearing other black people call each other nigga. They have just accepted it and embraced it. They even acknowledge that they are crackers. They say "I'm the whitest cracker ever." "I know I'm a cracker, what you gonna do about it." ect. It's supposed to be racist, but idk they've turned it from a negative into a positive. I guess it's more socially acceptable here where I live.

Sword and Shield

25th April 2011, 04:05

Anybody who is offended by the term "cracker" is a cracker.

Lanky Wanker

28th April 2011, 08:58

fucking crackers.

lol I love how that totally just broke up the whole discussion

Dean

28th April 2011, 17:43

The historical context of the term can't be contested: it was used against the white ruling class by the oppressed.

But a lot of people use the term today to disparage people for their ethnicity. I don't think its really appropriate unless specifically used in the right context.

Slavicrevolution1991

18th May 2011, 04:38

It is just a word fling it around. There is freedom of speech. If someone jokingly calls me a cracker i give thy no flying fuck. But if someone uses it as an insult, i will use an insult back, say if a black person rudely calls me cracker or whitey i will call him nigger or blacky.

If your going to consider that racist here is my answer for you. I feel racism has is
percieved by the masses in america as one sided. Anyone non white calling a white
person a slu will get no no attention, but a white muttering the word chink will cause
outrage across the land. Dont quote me on this last sentence but i believe the term cracker was used by blacks to reference the cracking of the whip a slave owner would do as he beat slaves. So if that is where the term originated anyone using that term is calling someone a slave beater, which is can be wrongly accusing someone of an atrocity based on the color of their skin which is stupid because more than half of white americans are the decendents of european immigrants who arrived after slavery was illegal and had nothing to do with it

tachosomoza

18th May 2011, 14:27

Racist slurs are uncalled for regardless of the "race" of the namecaller or recipient.

PhoenixAsh

18th May 2011, 14:55

Here's the practical activist reason that this definition of racism doesn't work: The problem with this definition of racism is that it is the main one used by the right-wing to argue that racism doesn't exist or is a class-neutral form of bigotry. It is the argument made by Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck about black racism against whites and they use it not to really make a case that white people are really oppressed, but to confuse and blur the real institutional racism in this country.

Well..the whole thing is racism is class neutral. It does not matter what class you are...you are classified by your skin colour. Something we can definately see in the case of Obama.

Wether or not the right wing uses something as an argument should not be a consideration for us.

Reducing "racism" to bigotry makes it easier for the "post-racism" arguments and the people who claim that not only is racism not a problem but that actually "reverse-racism" is the problem.

Its recognizing racism is a tendency in human beings and exists on many levels...not just in the institutionalised form. That tendency gets institutionalised if racists come into power or if its used to justify one groups dominance over another (as happened in the US with slavery)...

If racism is any consideration of race regardless of the historical and social context, then a St. Patrick's day joke about you're Irish friend today is equivalent to bosses putting "No Irish need apply" signs up in 1870; then affirmative action really is "racist" as the right-wing claims; then Denesh DeSouza is a legitimate scholar on racism, not a right-wing hack making excuses for racial inequality in the US.

Yes...thats pretty much it.

In short, this argument is bad for the left because it gives too much ideological ground to the right and to racists.

No...its the shortcomming of the left to not recognize the fact that racism does not start with institutions but with opinions and actions....and thereby allowing some forms of racial categorisation ...which in turn fuel the arguments for the right and racists.

The theoretical reasons this definition of racism doesn't work is that race is not an absolute, so to treat racism as "anything that is based on skin color" in the abstract doesn't work because "race" is a fluid construct.

I do not treat it as such. But to argue that its not limited to skin colour as an argument for the use of words which do is a bit asinine...don't you think?

Many east Asians have the same skin tone as many Europeans and are not considered white, Jewish people from Europe were persecuted AS A RACE, not as a religious group, and Irish people were not considered "white" in the civil-war era US. Yet all these groups face/faced institutionalized and systemic racism in the US.

Indeed...so basically the argument I made is valid here: do not categorize peopel based on genetic traits or based on categorisations based on genetic traits.

IMO any definition of racism that is simply "race-based consideration" is useless to the left - even though I know that popularly, racism is thought to be class-neutral in this way. But in popular discourse "imperialism" means militarized aggression and the left is generally pretty good at maintaining its own specific definition of what we mean by imperialism while acknowledging that not all people hold that view of the term.

Its mainly imperialists who do not hold that definition of the term.

If a nonwhite person calling a white person "cracker" is racist regardless of the context of history or class, then it reduces racism to the same level as "bullying" or making fun of "goths" or "emo-kids".

If you can argue that Goth and Emo is an expression of genetic factors...and then build a set of behaviour and opinions towards these groups. Then...yes it is...

Sure it sucks and it hurts on an individual level, and it's even connected to the way the system divides people and keeps them competing with each-other, but it is objectively nothing like the institutionalized oppression of women or black people or whatnot in the US.

Its not connected...its the reason...why the system devides people. And its inherrently the origins of institutionalised racism.

Oppression of women however is NOT racism.