Poll: Is Cracker a derogatory term? And can one be racist against white people?

[renegade7]

Yes, "cracker" is a derogatory racial slur. It comes from "whip-cracker", ie, a slave driver (this was actually news to me, since I thought it referred to the pasty whiteness of something like a Saltine cracker). As for being comparable to other slurs like "raghead", "******", "kike", or "*****"...well, I can only speak for myself, but I'd have a hard time being offended if someone started calling me "cracker" as though it was supposed to be an insult.

Now, there are other slurs for white people that I think are much more offensive. "Trailer trash" comes readily to mind. I've also heard "Upper-middle class" used aggressively as a slur for white people (the same way one might refer to poor black people as "Inner-city youths"), which I think is a little bit worse because it mixes classism with racism (assuming black people are poorer than white people, and from that assumption painting a picture that white people are "the rich" who are oppressing "the poor").

Of course it is possible to be racist towards white people. White people are a race. If you make a judgment of a member of that race on account of his or her being a member of that race then you are being racist. That's what "racist" means.

 

[one squirrel]

Racist? Yes. Is it possible to be racist against white people? Yes, but it'll never be as substantial as people who aren't white will experience in many if not all of the pre-dominantly white nations of the world. A raindrop to a storm.

The quardian, UK news:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/oct/22/ukcrime.race

"Racial murders: nearly half the victims are white"

A few snippets from the article:

"Nearly half of all victims of racially motivated murders in the last decade have been white, according to official figures released by the Home Office.
The data, released under Freedom of Information legislation, shows that between 1995 and 2004 there have been 58 murders where the police consider a racial element played a key part."

"Peter Fahy, the Chief Constable of Cheshire and a spokesman on race issues for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said it was a fact that it was harder to get the media interested where murder victims were young white men.

'The political correctness and reluctance to discuss these things absolutely does play a factor', he said. 'A lot of police officers and other professions feel almost the best thing to do is try and avoid it for fear of being criticised. We probably have all got ourselves into a bit of state about this.'
"

and finally to be fair

"Fahy also warned of caution in over-interpreting the figures. He said that the 24 white victims also included those who were Jewish, 'dark-skinned' Europeans or gypsies. In addition, seven of those were killed by white attackers, four by black, six by Asian, with seven whose racial background was not identified."

A teardro.. sorry, I mean a raindrop to a storm.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

I've always thought Cracker was a racist term, although I've never been called one nor heard anyone be called one.

And it is totally possible to be racist against white people. It is possible for any ethnic race to be racists against any other race. Being white does not mean you cannot be discriminated against. You'll probably face a different type of discrimination and racism, but it can, and does, still happen.

 

[one squirrel]

"Nearly half of all victims of racially motivated murders in the last decade have been white, according to official figures released by the Home Office."

According to the UK census of 2011[footnote]http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/census/2011/index.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter[/footnote], 88% of the people in the UK are white. Thats disproportionately low, only proving my point.

Yes and no. Each single instance of racial aggression is bad, and comparing it to "a raindop in a storm" is still downplaying and dismissive of the problems of a few, because others supposedly have it worse. An other point is that races are not evenly distributed, so that whites are in the majority at any given time and everywhere just because they are the majority in aggregate.

 

[jamail77]

Also, I am very sick and tired of people claiming you can't be racist or sexist against white people and men. I am a white male. No way in hell can you look at my life any and say that I am privileged and/or in power. I don't have time right now to look it up. There is an insightful and funny commentary about the myth of privilege from a book written in the late 90's. I'll find it and share with you tomorrow.

You're looking at the concept a little too simply. It most certainly is not a myth nor does its existence trivialize your relative lower standing to a caricatured, powerful white person. Here's a good example [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gina-crosleycorcoran/explaining-white-privilege-to-a-broke-white-person_b_5269255.html] of what I mean. Sad it comes from The Huffington Post of all places but whatever.

That said, white privilege does not mean you can't act discriminatory towards white men. However, racism and sexism in their most powerful forms depend on systemic discrimination against minorities, especially historically disenfranchised minorities. It often exists in spite of goodwill from majorities in the dominant party due to their ignorance on how the system continues to sustain it and their own casual racism and sexism. Like someone else said,

Yes, it's racist, yes you can be racist against whites.

BUT... who gives a shit? Racism in general is an issue when one group wields power over another, it's just about booboos on your feelings. If you're in a part of the world where you're a "cracker", chances are you can afford to shrug it off. Shit, chances are you can shoot the person and claim self defense... I'd say that's a bigger issue, but what do I know.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Yes and no.

Yes, in that it's used to insult white people for being white.

No, in that the insult is that white people are too powerful, and it's used (in theory, never seen it used for real myself) in a society where white people are the dominant race. It's like coming up with insults for rich people, successful politicians or the able bodied by people who aren't. Yeah it's an insult, but it's a bit of a dismal failure.

Now, things might well be different in a majority black society.

 

[Redryhno]

Yes, it's racist, yes you can be racist against whites.

BUT... who gives a shit? Racism in general is an issue when one group wields power over another, it's just about booboos on your feelings. If you're in a part of the world where you're a "cracker", chances are you can afford to shrug it off. Shit, chances are you can shoot the person and claim self defense... I'd say that's a bigger issue, but what do I know.

If that's the case, why is anybody complaining about words like "******", "retard", "******" and "whore"? All of those words have historical connotations of discrimination as well, but they've all also evolved into something more, with all of them widely re-purposed as simple greetings and terms of endearment anymore(well, maybe not whore, but it has certainly become a catch-all term and therefore lost most of its teeth). So, who really gives a shit about words? Are you being purposely and knowingly held back because of your birth? Then you've got a case, but otherwise, who literally can summon the effort to care about ANY single-word insults like that? Pretty lazy insultist if you ask me if they have to rely on boring ones like that.

The majority of the people that get upset about them are honestly pretty well off, and aren't miffed because of the word, or even the historical implications of it, but because it "ruined" their view of their world being "perfect" if it weren't for that rude prick that dared bother a stranger.

But I can give you a reason TO give a shit. People say racist comments against whites are a drop in the rainstorm, and they may be right, doesn't make it any less "disgusting" just because the "victim" is lighter than others. And the moment you start putting out "it's more okay because they're white" parameters, is the moment you start being even more racist than the one doing the slurs in the first place. Not to say that racism/discrimination is a wholly bad thing(it's gotten me clear from events that would've happened with myself involved after all), but words are honestly the least of pretty much anybody's worries in this case, as it should be.

Also, sorry if this post is scrambled, I'm about to go try to sleep a couple hours before work because I was stupid and didn't sleep when I got home from the last shift today.

 

[Carzinex]

Yes, its intended as a racist term but you know what, it has no bite. If anyone calls you a cracker just laugh at them that will wind them up alot more than you taking offence to it.

People give words power, its just a bloody word like all the others people get offended at.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Cracker refers to slave owners (crack of the whip).

I guess it's racist in that it's a racial term?

I was never really offended when people called me 'Beaner' and 'Jewbagel', but I guess it's a personal thing.

Eh. The offensiveness of a word often has little to do with what it actually means. It's the history behind it, and how it's used that typically matters.

After all, the 'n' word that everyone freaks out about (apparently. Never heard a single person use it even once, except online and in films. Must be an especially American thing...)
...
Well, anyway, the significance of that word has nothing to do with what it literally means. (because, it is after all, a derivative of the word for 'black', except it has origins from a different language. I mean, you can argue that calling someone 'black' is also offensive, but... Eh.)

In the same way, whether 'cracker' would be offensive has little to do with what it actually means, and much more to do with the history and intent behind the word.

As for racism... Yes. It's racist.

Sorry, but racism is more than a power game.
Bigotry works in all directions.

Yes, it's true that if you are a position of power (numerical superiority, actual power derived from some cultural reasons or wealth or whatever), then the consequences of being a bigot are considerably more detrimental to others, but fundamentally regardless of the power dynamics, a bigot is still a bigot.

It's just that when the power dynamics of a situation work in your favour, you have far more capacity to just shrug it off and not care.
Whereas if you are on the weaker side of that power dynamic (whether due to race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or whatever else human beings can find to be assholes to eachother about), there's much less you can do if people are abusive, and you may find that you have nowhere to turn, because the people that would ordinarily arbitrate or protect you are as bad as the people that are abusing you.

That power dynamic is important to remember, because it has consequences such that while fundamentally bigotry has the same basis no matter who is doing it to whom, the effects, and consequences and what you can do about it vary considerably depending on where you fall on that particular power dynamic.

This stuff gets complicated and messy when you examine those dynamics.

But it would be a lot simpler if people really just would stop being bigoted jerks to each-other, regardless of who you are...

 

[Twintix]

Anybody who claims that it's impossible to be racist against white people because they're more "priviledged" are being extremely racist hypocrites.

Yes, "cracker" is a racist term. It's a derogatory name used for white people. Based on their skin color. So it's racist.

I am fucking sick of these people who think that "POC" should be able to get away with everything, even calling others derogatory names. Listen, asshole, being black is not a "get out of jail free" card. Reminds me of a guy my dad went to university with, who was from India. He never worked on anything because his friends had told him that "Swedes will do all the work for you, so you don't even have to show up". My dad eventually got fed up with him and submitted work without putting down the guy's name in the report. Surprise, surprise, he didn't get his grade and claimed that they were being racist, even though he hadn't lifted a goddamn finger during the whole project.

I'm sorry for sounding a bit heated, but this happens whenever I come across hypocrites. Few things infuriate me in the same way hypocrisy does.

 

[Hagi]

Slave owners were rich and powerful. It's like when people taunt Jews about their 'Jewgold'. You're insulting them by referencing their wealth. Surely that's a poor insult?

Apply that logic to catcalls.

After all, they're only referencing that woman's attractiveness.

 

[FalloutJack]

It's spoken with that intent and chiefly at white people. So, it IS derogatory and you CAN be racists against white people.

 

[carnex]

This is a topic where, at least today, one musnt open one's mouth and speak the truth unless that person is prepared to get shitstorm back. But, as you might have summarized, i really don't care about that.

I don't know about the term cracker, it could never apply to this part of the world.

Yes, you can be racist to white, many people are. It's a frame of mind and thinking, nothing else.

But here is the heart of the problem. Isults are as bad, painfull and influental as people subjectively interpret them. For that very reason, majority of folk don't really react to racist slurls. They don't identify with them. Insluts that stop getting reactions stop existing, simple as that. Threre are countless examples of that. If one wants to fight racist slurls, this is the ONLY acceptable way that will give results.

It's easier to ignore slurs when you are in position where it doesn't affect you sense of self, but most people don't identify themself with their race so racial slurs really don't affect them, no matter how bad they are.

 

[Hoplon]

Slave owners were rich and powerful. It's like when people taunt Jews about their 'Jewgold'. You're insulting them by referencing their wealth. Surely that's a poor insult?

Apply that logic to catcalls.

After all, they're only referencing that woman's attractiveness.

It's it also a reference to the holocaust? you know the bit about all the gold fillings being taken from gas chamber victims and squirrelled away in Switzerland or some where.

 

[MiskWisk]

Yes and yes. In fact I personally believe people who hold that whole, "Can't be racist against white people" to actually be some of the most racist individuals possible that do not resort to physical violence.

However, in relation to the cracker bit though, well I think it is a pretty poor insult even with the context. In fact, unless you go looking for the context I doubt it is likely to ever really make sense. Especially since any word can be a derogatory term if you put the right emphasis on it. I remember seeing a comic mocking this with the word "pepperoni."

P.S. Does anyone know the proper placement of punctuation that ends a sentence when the end of the sentence is in quotation marks? Like, in my post, does the full-stop go in the quotation marks or outside them?

 

[totheendofsin]

It is a derogatory term, HOWEVER it does not have anywhere close to the same weight derogatory terms aimed at other races have.

 

[Darks63]

Cracker refers to slave owners (crack of the whip).

I guess it's racist in that it's a racial term?

I was never really offended when people called me 'Beaner' and 'Jewbagel', but I guess it's a personal thing.

The people cracking the whip were rarely the slave owners themselves. Typically they left unpleasant duties such as that to the overseers whom were general nearly as low as the slaves in the plantation hierarchy. Often the overseers lived in close proximity to the slaves or with them in the slave quarters and could;d only enter the owners house at invitation only.

Taken in that context cracker is a bit more like saying the person is a someone whom does the dirty work for the man and has to sleep among the lowest of the low for his troubles.