"Oh my god, you're SO white."

[Magic Man]

And yet, we only a few years ago had 'white only' signs all over the United States. What GENERAL group of people do you think those signs were referring to? And why do you think it was so important that the people who put those signs up used skin color as their delineation.

To claim there is no "white culture" is just silly. I agree that white culture in the United States is made up of a number of other cultural influences, but it's the "whiteness" that dominated the criteria, and still does.

So, "dark people" have their own culture, then? After all, it's the "darkness" that dominated the criteria, right?

Also, you're still forgetting the fact that several white groups were discriminated against when they came here. There was a long period of time when those signs also excluded the Irish, despite them being white. But, hey, don't let that get in the way of your ramblings. Carry on.

Your culture is not defined by your skin color. It's defined by how you live.

OK, then why use skin color to differentiate? Why not just say "You're so culturally myopic"? Saying it's ok to tell someone they're so white meaning they're culturally myopic is exactly that. It's precisely defining their culture by their skin color. Many white people don't live like that, myself included. So, there's no reason to even mention "whiteness".

 

[Stellify]

You should have paid more attention to what I actually wrote, and less to what you imagined me to have said.
You mean points that you already agree with. What's the value in that?

When I said you were contradicting yourself, I said so because of the words you used in your posts and the way one post would contradict the other.
Such as using "that doesn't apply to reality" in an argument against me, then turning around and saying "there's no such thing as the real world" when someone else tried to use the same argument against you. Or when you say bigotry is wrong, then turn around and endorse it under a different name. That's contradiction, dear.

No, I don't mean points I already agree with. There are some things you have said that I think are valid (whether or not I agree), but on the whole, you're being narrow-minded and completely blind, and you aren't backing up your arguments in a logical fashion, imo. Nor are many of your points applicable in the vast majority of social situations I've come across. If they were, then I would be much more willing to accept them as valid and realistic (once again, whether I agreed or not).

 

[PureX]

You're getting sloppier here. And your other "arguments" were nothing but complete garbage as well. Why don't you just run along? Stop wasting thread space with your racist views.

And you're grabbing onto smaller and smaller straws to try and pretend you're the "winner". How petty is that?

 

[PureX]

So you struggle to grasp how that's blatant two-faced hypocrisy, not to mention a logical fallacy? Are you honestly saying that innocent people deserved to be insulted and attacked due to some perceived sense of injustice that they themselves had nothing to do with?

No one is innocent. The members of the majority culture perpetuate the status quo through their ignorance of it's effect on others, and through their pretense of innocence through that ignorance. Therefor, the minorities that are effected negatively by this supposed blind innocence have the right and even obligation to attack this pretense, and destroy it. For the good of all.

Anyone who would judge someone else solely by their race isn't fit to lick my boots, and neither are those who would defend their behavior.

I agree, but I'm not talking about racism. And I don't care about your egotistical fits of righteousness, either. What I'm talking about is the right and obligation to speak truth to power, even when doing so is defined in racial terms, as cultural differences so often are.

 

[PureX]

It's one thing to say that most white people are culturally myopic. It's another to say that white people are culturally myopic. You have been advocating that latter, not the former.

I have just clarified that completely so you're grasping at tiny and insignificant straws, here.

You have also been advocating the idea that it's OK to say "You're so white" meaning "You're so culturally myopic". By advocating that, you're saying it's ok to make judgements about people solely based on their skin color.

Actually, the judgement is based on their being a member of the majority culture. Skin color is just a simple way people use to define that culture here in the U.S. You're trying to use your objection to generalizations based on skin color to disregard the assertion of cultural myopia. But it's not working. I don't care about the generalizations based on skin color in the least. Use some other general characteristic to define the majority culture in the U.S. if you want to. That has nothing to do with my point: that the majority culture is blind to it's own effect on other cultures and peoples, so that there's a right and an obligation for those other cultures to dare to speak truth to power. And that often requires accusations that the majority culture doesn't like to hear and doesn't want to accept. Too bad.

That's saying that whether or not you think all white people are culturally myopic, it's ok by you to judge them as such. And that's wrong.

I think it's logical to judge them as such until they show otherwise. Because most of them are.

 

[PureX]

So, "dark people" have their own culture, then? After all, it's the "darkness" that dominated the criteria, right?

I believe the other signs read, "colored". It's obvious that the dominant culture defined themselves as "white" and everyone else as "colored". It was their own choice designation, and it has stuck as a result of their continued using it.

Also, you're still forgetting the fact that several white groups were discriminated against when they came here. There was a long period of time when those signs also excluded the Irish, despite them being white. But, hey, don't let that get in the way of your ramblings. Carry on.

There was almost no time or place in which the "colored only" sings meant people of Irish decent.

OK, then why use skin color to differentiate? Why not just say "You're so culturally myopic"?

Ask the majority culture itself. They're the one's who chose to define themselves as "white" above all else.

Saying it's ok to tell someone they're so white meaning they're culturally myopic is exactly that. It's precisely defining their culture by their skin color. Many white people don't live like that, myself included. So, there's no reason to even mention "whiteness".

Well, your bone of contention, then, is with your own culture, which has defined itself as "white" for so long that it's now referred to that way.

 

[PureX]

When I said you were contradicting yourself, I said so because of the words you used in your posts and the way one post would contradict the other.
Such as using "that doesn't apply to reality" in an argument against me, then turning around and saying "there's no such thing as the real world" when someone else tried to use the same argument against you. Or when you say bigotry is wrong, then turn around and endorse it under a different name. That's contradiction, dear.

When speaking of a paradox, we often find ourselves in a contradiction. That's the nature of paradox. But you were ignoring context, and not asking for clarification. Instead, you were jumping to negative conclusions that I was not making and jumping to the conclusions that you felt made me look the worst.

Why did you do that, do you think?

 

[Father Heathen]

No one is innocent. The members of the majority culture perpetuate the status quo through their ignorance of it's effect on others, and through their pretense of innocence through that ignorance. Therefor, the minorities that are effected negatively by this supposed blind innocence have the right and even obligation to attack this pretense, and destroy it. For the good of all.
I agree, but I'm not talking about racism. And I don't care about your egotistical fits of righteousness, either. What I'm talking about is the right and obligation to speak truth to power, even when doing so is defined in racial terms, as cultural differences so often are.

So by being called "so white" for liking certain genres of music (stuff like Beethoven, for example) is completely sensible and will somehow topple the sinister majority and restore peace to the galaxy? riiiiiiight. Should my low-down honky *** feel guilty about liking real music that's actually good?

 

[Father Heathen]

There was almost no time or place in which the "colored only" sings meant people of Irish decent.

Your point? Racial segregation hasn't been the only form of discrimination that has ever been around. Pick up a history book, son. People have been discriminated against due to their nationality, religion, gender, class and sexuality despite being a member of the same "race" as the "majority". I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the world is actually much, much more complex and complicated than you seem to realize. Go out in it and experience it sometime.

Ask the majority culture itself.

It would be slightly difficult to ask something that only exists as an abstract concept within your skull a question.

 

[Elessar]

There was almost no time or place in which the "colored only" sings meant people of Irish decent.

Here in the north, they always meant that. No Irish, no Slavs, no Italians, no Jews, in addition to no African Americans. That's what they meant up here. That's what they always meant up here.

 

[PureX]

So by being called "so white" for liking certain genres of music (stuff like Beethoven, for example) is completely sensible and will somehow topple the sinister majority and restore peace to the galaxy? riiiiiiight. Should my low-down honky *** feel guilty about liking real music that's actually good?

You can throw all the red herrings around that you want, but it just makes you look silly. The comment was, "You're so white". The context was left undefined.

 

[PureX]

Here in the north, they always meant that. No Irish, no Slavs, no Italians, no Jews, in addition to no African Americans. That's what they meant up here. That's what they always meant up here.

I would like to see some evidence of that, because I simply don't believe it to be true. I grew up in the north, and although there was always a bias against the latest group of immigrants by the previous groups, at no time were the Irish referred to as "colored" and made to use separate toilets.

 

[Elessar]

You can throw all the red herrings around that you want, but it just makes you look silly. The comment was, "You're so white". The context was left undefined.

No, it wasn't. It was defined pretty obviously in the OP. The fact that everyone besides yourself seems to have the same idea of what was intended, including the original poster, perhaps you could consider the possibility that you interpreted it wrong?

 

[Elessar]

I would like to see some evidence of that, because I simply don't believe it to be true. I grew up in the north, and although there was always a bias against the latest group of immigrants by the previous groups, at no time were the Irish referred to as "colored" and made to use separate toilets.

But neither were blacks made to use separate toilets in the north. That kind of de jure segregation did not exist in the north. It was a much more subtle form of de facto segregation that was rarely explicit, but often as insidious as that in the south.

 

[Father Heathen]

You can throw all the red herrings around that you want, but it just makes you look silly. The comment was, "You're so white". The context was left undefined.

"Red herring"? It's exactly the sort of thing that the OP was talking about. Pay attention.

 

[ChristineES]

PureX- What I want to ask it this (You may have already have answered but please humor me)- Do you believe that all whites can be insulted, put down, made fun of, etc just because in the past a there were whites who discriminated against others and a few still do? And if you do believe that, isn't that a double standard? Or isn't it being kind of a hypocrite?

 

[PureX]

PureX- What I want to ask it this (You may have already have answered but please humor me)- Do you believe that all whites can be insulted, put down, made fun of, etc just because in the past a there were whites who discriminated against others and a few still do? And if you do believe that, isn't that a double standard? Or isn't it being kind of a hypocrite?

Anyone can be insulted at any time. It's their own choice. If someone told me I'm a bad dancer because I'm white, it's up to me to choose to believe it or not. I may be a bad dancer, but not because I'm white. Or I may be a good dancer, just not of the style the other person appreciates as "dance". Or they may be right, that because I'm part of the uptight white male culture, I lack the freedom and spontaneity that it takes to dance well.

In any case, I wouldn't take the other person's remark as an insult. I would take it as an observation, to which I may then choose to feel insulted or not.

And I welcome their observation, even if I choose to feel somewhat insulted by them, because everyone has the right to make such observations if they wish. And because I can learn about myself from them, even when they're wrong. And I can learn about them as well. Even when they're wrong.

What I wouldn't do is whine and pout about how unfair it is that someone dared to tell me what they think of me. What I wouldn't do is accuse them of racism or some other form of hate simply because they don't appreciate the way I do things.

Also, I recognize that I live in a dominant culture, and that my culture and I are often blind to the negative effect we have on other cultures that live among us. And for that reason I would allow for people of other cultures a much wider field of "grace". That is because they are of a different culture, and because I do not likely understand their way of thinking very well, I will give them MORE of the benefit of the doubt than I would give someone from my own culture, regarding a possible insult or ill intent. And when I am confronted with negative accusations against my own culture, I will have to give them extra thought, because I do realize that I might WANT to dismiss them too quickly. And I also realize that people of other cultures can often see flaws that I can't, in my own culture.

So to answer your question, yes, I would give them preference. Even if they ARE meaning only to insult me. And I do it because I know I have had the upper hand, unfairly, simply by my being a part of the dominant culture.

As far as past racism goes, my ancestors have benefitted greatly from the crimes they committed against others. And I, in turn, have benefitted as well. I may not have committed the crimes, and I may not know which of my ancestors did, but I do know that I have benefitted from them, and that I still am to some degree. This why even though I have been harmed by reverse discrimination (and I have been more than you know), I accept it as just and necessary.

 

[Magic Man]

I have just clarified that completely so you're grasping at tiny and insignificant straws, here.

OK, so I should just disregard all of your prior posts, then? Because all of your comments in them supported the idea that you were claiming that all white people were like that, not just some. This wasn't just a clarification by you, it was a contradiction of the ideas you had already put forth.

Actually, the judgement is based on their being a member of the majority culture. Skin color is just a simple way people use to define that culture here in the U.S. You're trying to use your objection to generalizations based on skin color to disregard the assertion of cultural myopia. But it's not working. I don't care about the generalizations based on skin color in the least. Use some other general characteristic to define the majority culture in the U.S. if you want to. That has nothing to do with my point: that the majority culture is blind to it's own effect on other cultures and peoples, so that there's a right and an obligation for those other cultures to dare to speak truth to power. And that often requires accusations that the majority culture doesn't like to hear and doesn't want to accept. Too bad.

You seem to be forgetting that whiteness is the topic of this thread, or race, if you want. You were the one who brought up the whole majority and cultural myopia thing. If that has nothing to do with skin color, then you shouldn't have brought it up. If all you want to talk about is the majority, then you should start another thread.

Also, this isn't about what the majority wants to hear or accept. This is about remembering that everybody is an individual, and doesn't necessarily fit a generalization. I also think you have an outdated view of the whole situation.

I think it's logical to judge them as such until they show otherwise. Because most of them are.

OK, so you don't mind when people make claims like "Those black people are so lazy" or "Those Mexicans, they're all dirty"? That's OK, right? Because "most of them are like that, right? Or could it just be a stereotype? Oh, that's right, it's ok for you to say that about white people simply because they're the majority, but people can't say that about minorities. Sorry, I forgot about the double standard.

I believe the other signs read, "colored". It's obvious that the dominant culture defined themselves as "white" and everyone else as "colored". It was their own choice designation, and it has stuck as a result of their continued using it.

Nice dodge. Now, back to my question. You're saying there's such a thing as "colored culture"? I mean, if there's "white culture", then there must be "colored culture", right?

There was almost no time or place in which the "colored only" sings meant people of Irish decent.

And? What's your point? Irish still were grouped in with "the colored". Obviously, they wouldn't have been indicated by something that said "coloreds" considering they were white. The point is that they were discriminated against just like the "coloreds". Now, would you care to respond directly to my comment or try another dodge?

Ask the majority culture itself. They're the one's who chose to define themselves as "white" above all else.

I'm not asking them. I'm asking you. You're the one claiming that all white people are culturally myopic. So, why use skin color? Why not just say "the majority"? You seem to conveniently leave out all of the well-off non-white people who have more connection with the majority than they do with any minority, even their own. Don't you think the line might be better drawn between rich people and not-rich people? Or would that not fit your racism?

Well, your bone of contention, then, is with your own culture, which has defined itself as "white" for so long that it's now referred to that way.

No, my bone of contention is with your assertion that all white people are like that, or that there is even a "white culture". Any chance you'll actually respond to any of this at some point? Or are you just going to keep dodging everything?

 

[Magic Man]

You can throw all the red herrings around that you want, but it just makes you look silly.

Maybe you should take your own advice.

The comment was, "You're so white". The context was left undefined.

No, the context was well-defined. You just decided to ignore it.

 

[Magic Man]

In any case, I wouldn't take the other person's remark as an insult. I would take it as an observation, to which I may then choose to feel insulted or not.

OK, so if I call you a racist, stupid, arrogant, ignorant, silly piece of scum, it's just an observation, and it's you who are responsible for taking it as an insult?

(For the record, I'm not calling you all of that, just using it as an example.)