There is no such thing.
When discussing racial slurs or anything race-related, the question of whether you can be racist towards white people is often raised. After all, terms like “honky” or “cracker,” are frequently used to degrade whites so why don’t more people get as upset over it as they would when white people use words like “nigger.”
Ok so slurs against white people are quite obviously inappropriate and offensive, and people really should refrain from being assholes as much as possible but really, these words are so just so damn silly, so utterly pathetic that they hardly qualify as racial slurs at all, let alone slurs on a par with those that have been historically deployed against people of color. POC have little or no power over white people institutionally; we haven’t ever defined the terms of their existence, we haven’t ever limited their opportunities, and so white folks don’t need to worry much about the use of a slur to describe them since, in all likelihood, the slur is as far as it’s going to go.
So whereas “nigger” was and is a term used by whites to dehumanize blacks, to imply their inferiority, to “put them in their place” if you will, the same cannot be said of honky: after all, you can’t put white people in their place when they own the place to begin with. People argue this point by saying that racism is discriminating against someone because of their race, but this is where they’re fundamentally wrong. Prejudice is one person discriminating against another person because of their race (and or other factors). Racism is the systemic discrimination against and oppression of people of color by white people. No such systemic oppression of white people by people of color exists. So ‘racism’ against white people cannot logically be a thing.
The day that someone produces a newspaper ad that reads: “Twenty honkies for sale today: good condition, best offer accepted,” or “Cracker to be lynched tonight: whistled at black woman,” maybe then I’ll consider the concept of “reverse racism”. When white churches start getting burned down by militant blacks and browns who spray paint “kill the honkies” on the sidewalks outside, then maybe I’ll take seriously these concerns over “reverse racism.” Until then, that shit don’t exist.
Tags: bigotry, blacks, browns, people, people of color, poc, race, racial slurs, racism, reverse racism, slurs, whites
Freedom of speech is not freedom without consequences.
Now rinse and repeat.
There is an every growing cry of “Loss of Freedoms” when dealing with bigoted words and actions. To a bigot, being able to say something bigoted is part of their freedom. Well, they’re right. It is. The thing they seem to have such a difficult time understanding is that when someone else speaks out against their bigotry, freedom of speech is also being used.
People that say things like, “So much for freedom of speech” or “I have freedom of speech, I can say anything I want” in reaction to someone else’s use of the same freedom are not talking about freedom, rights or even liberty. Although, they always try to couch it as such.
No, what these people are talking about is control. They are usually people who’ve never been told that their voice wasn’t important, valued or wanted. Therefore, when they say something bigoted and someone speaks out against it, they are enraged not by what they claim as “Loss of freedom” but instead that they (and like minded people) are not the only persons allowed to have said freedoms.
They yearn for the “Good ole days” where they were the only person allowed to talk in certain groups. They don’t believe in liberty and freedom. They believe that THEY should be free and all else should be under their personal control.
“I have freedom of speech” is very likely coming from someone who does in fact have freedom of speech. Their problem? They believe they are the ONLY ones who have it. Or at least, the only person who should have it.
Tags: actions, bigot, bigotry, conversation, freedom of speech, intersectionality, language, oppression, speech, truth, words
“I am distrustful of anyone who says they prefer the label “humanist” to “feminist.” You’ve heard the argument before. It’s an attempt to downplay oppression against women and avoid acknowledging male privilege. “Humanist” is taken. It has a definition. It’s a life philosophy that affirms humans’ ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment guided by reason and compassion rather than supernaturalism. Many humanists are feminists and vice versa but “humanist” isn’t just a word you made up, bub.
Co-opting “humanist” is disingenuous and lazy. Not all humans are on a level playing field. There is inequality between men and women (and among women), and the feminist movement seeks to rectify that. It was called the “feminist” movement for a reason.”
Tags: bigotry, humanism, humans, male privilege, misogyny, people, race, racism, sexism, slavery, white privilege, white tears