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

[Areloch]

These threads are always magical.

Because they ALWAYS devolve into people attempting to swing statistics around and math out who is more oppressed in ever-more specific and minute contexts to "win" than anyone agreeing that being racist is kinda awful.

Nope, it's all about who's MORE racist, and therefore being racist AGAINST them is fine.

That wasn't the point of the thread when I made it though :/

Didn't mean to imply that was the intention of the thread, but unfortunately that's where they always seem to go. It's definitely a bummer

To the topic itself, yes, cracker is generally used as a racial term in a derogatory manner, and yes you can be racist to white people.

Captcha: Leave Me Alone
Geeze, what did I ever do to you, captcha?

 

[EvilRoy]

Well yes, but the problem with that outlook is that everyone has it shittier than you, making it a useless point.

No, it doesn't. You're employing the fallacy of relative privation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation], more commonly referred to as "there are children starving in Africa". We could go down a checklist of every major problem that exists in my country, United States, and there's going to be another country in the world where any one of those problems listed are worse. That doesn't mean its unimportant to deal with them in my nation. Of course I never said that we can only deal with one of these, thats an assumption on your part.

No, no. You are. You are implying that racism against white people matters less because they don't get racisted as much as other people. "A raindrop in a storm". It doesn't matter how many of these you are capable of dealing with at a time - I am capable of both watching my back and saving the starving African children at the same time, but at no point will I ever show up in a thread and mention that "yes, homosexual people suffer a lot, but it will never really be substantial compared to the suffering of children in Africa".

All I said is that the problem effects different groups to different extents, and that's what everybody quoting me has their knickers in a twist about. I pointed out a fact, period.

And what I'm saying is that this fact is ubiquitous across every issue possible in life, and is therefore useless. "Racism against black people is worse than racism against white people." "Starving children in Africa suffer more than trans people in the US." Same statement, different dressing.

The point is: it either all matters, or none of it matters.

But some of it is more pressing than others. There's racism that negatively effects white people in the United States and racism that negatively effects black people in the United states. The racism that effects people who are white is significantly less lethal than the racism that effects people who are black. They're not comparable to each other. To use another litmus for comparison, homophobia directly results in homelessness, violence and death towards non-heterosexual people. "Heterophobia" is somebody angrily ranting on their internet blog. Which of those two do you think is more pressing, more important to address? While you shouldn't neglect some times, as is common, that doesn't mean you shouldn't prioritize.

Exactly. And you should prioritize by spending your energy helping starving children in Africa instead of spending time worrying about first world problems like homophobia.

See the thing is, until you actually DO something, you're just talking. And as long as you're just talking, deciding that this or that thing matters less than this or that other thing is both insulting and useless to all parties involved.

 

[WhiteNachos]

"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.

Wait a minute if 88% of the population is white then in a perfect world wouldn't 88% of the racial hate crimes be coming FROM white people? The fact that are more than half the victims means proportionately they have it harder than everyone else.

 

[EvilRoy]

No, no. You are. You are implying that racism against white people matters less because they don't get racisted as much as other people.

Matters less? No. Less significant? Yes, mathematical significance. I never said "a white person being a victim of racism isn't a problem", but it is, however, less common, less mathematically significant, and statistically racism against white people is going to be less harmful. Its math, plain and simple.

Well we live in a world with limited resources and limited time in our lives, so yeah it does. Do you save a bus filled with fifty ordinary people from rolling off the bridge or the bus with five ordinary people from rolling off the bridge? In an ideal world, you can do both, but we don't live in an ideal world.

Because that would be an unrelated non-sequeter. Racism that people who aren't white experience is relevant in a thread about the racism white people experience because it gives contrast.

I never said it didn't matter. It is, however, of lesser mathematical significance, which means that resources need to be distrubted as such. We live in an imperfect world world where the options at hand are usually less than ideal, and its irresponsible to act otherwise.

What I think you're not getting is that when I call for you to save the African children, I am simply following your logic to its natural conclusion. If you want to talk about statistical significance we can, but you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that you don't get to square things in such a way that the only two statistics shown are "racism against black people vs racism against white people". There are other statistics, and if we're talking real suffering then black people and white people suffering racism in the first world are going to have to figure out how to split a penny while everybody else works on portioning out the other $9,999.99 that was given.

Talking is how you figure out what the best course of action is. Talking is how you deal with the problems that arise after you've chosen a course of action. Talking is how you convince somebody that one plan is action is better than other. Talking is important. All talk, no walk is, of course, bad, no duh, but talking has its place, its necessary.

Talking is plenty important, after individual priorities have been determined. Prior to that, talking is essentially an exercise in guilting people into changing those priorities.

 

[KissingSunlight]

I skimmed the article that you posted the link to. I'll read it completely later on. Right now, I am tired after a long day. From what I understand, it's the argument that white and/or men are privilege because of history. The pushback to that argument is you can legally discriminate against white people and men right now in the present.

Er, no, the article is about the present. Now, the causes of the issues might have started some time way back in history, but the effects are felt to this day.

I told you I didn't read the whole thing. Now that I have, I still say the author has missed the mark.

First, she quoted this essay about white privilege. Here are some of the things the author quoted from the essay: "If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven't been singled out because of my race."

"I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time."

Really? No white person ever been harassed by the cops. I know I had. No minority can arrange to be in the company of their own race? That's BS! I see people of all races hanging out with people of their own race.

The one point that she did made I agreed with. When you break down social issues like race and gender, it really does come down to class. You can't tell me that Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jordan experiences the same problems as other black people and women who aren't millionaires.

Which is why I liked what Scott Adams say about privilege. Just because, I share some physical traits to someone better off than me. It doesn't mean that I have the same power, prestige, and money as that person.

Even if you checked off every category that she list in the end of her blog, that doesn't mean you have won the lottery. Everybody have their cross to bear. To ignore and minimized their problems, because you believe that they are "privilege". That is bigotry.

 

[J Tyran]

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.

Agreed but isn't calling a white man today a slaver or well 'cracker' a bit inapropriate?

Kind of? I mean, a slave owner is in a position of power. Can that really be considered offensive? If anything it seems like anyone who'd call someone else 'Cracker' is kind of disrespecting themselves. Unless they're trying to inspire some feelings of white guilt?

I'm not saying minorities can't be racist, but I'm not sure cracker is a... bad term for lack of a better phrase.

It's a racist term in as much as its usually aimed at Caucasian people only, European and Caucasian where not the only slave owners and they where not the only people involved in that particular era (let alone the whole breadth of Human history).

It ignores all of the Black African slave traders, the Islamic African Caliphates and everything else. Caucasians where not the ones catching slaves or buying them and they where not the only ones profiting from it yet "Cracker" is always thrown at white people. Considering its also thrown at people that don't own slaves and find it disgusting (mostly anyway, you never know about a few) its doubly prejudicial, if it was directed at a real slave owner your argument would hold true I agree.

 

[SquidSponge]

/sigh.

Long answer:
"Cracker", as many have already said, refers to the crack of a slave-owner's whip. Its use when addressing a white recipient is typically intended in the same way as the use of "******" against a black recipient, though it lacks the same metaphorical "weight" that the latter has attained due to historical events that I'm sure I don't need to detail here. My personal take? The intent is what is important, and sincere use of either word is the sure mark of a racist.

As for the "[insert demographic here] cannot be [x]ist against [insert demographic here]" argument, that's Tumblr channeling Orwell's Newspeak - a cute attempt to redefine certain words, most notably "racism" and "sexism", to something that better suits them - typically in a way that better fits some narrative pushed by their ideology. The "racism = power + prejudice" definition came, as best I can tell, out of a research paper from one of the the social sciences and has since gained traction as a way to rationalise one's own [x]ism (and thus ease a guilty conscience) - effectively, a case of "it's OK that I'm prejudiced, because without the power to act on that I cannot be [rac]ist", using their own personal prejudice but, conveniently, their demographic's historical amount of power relative to their target's demographic's historical amount of power ("historical" often being anything between 1960 and 1750 AD). Intellectual dishonesty of the highest order. Essentially it boils down to the fallacy of equivocation, like how the word "organic" means something different to a chemistry major than it does to a farmer - likewise, "racism = power + prejudice" is perhaps a useful summary in the specific contexts within certain fields of social sciences, but it's not the same definition (nor, technically, the same word) as "racism" used in common parlance and therefore cannot with any validity be used as such.

Short answer:
The term "cracker" is racist, and anyone can be racist.

Captcha:
"Nut case" - Damn right, Captcha, I'm just not sure whether it's all of them or if it's just me going crazy out here.

 

[Passive Aggression]

Matters less? No. Less significant? Yes, mathematical significance. I never said "a white person being a victim of racism isn't a problem", but it is, however, less common, less mathematically significant, and statistically racism against white people is going to be less harmful. Its math, plain and simple.

It seems a pretty racist ideal to minimize the suffering of a group of people based entirely on the color of their skin.

I mean, there's all you're basing it on, you're not looking at them as individuals, you're simply saying that all suffering of people of a certain race is just "Less significant" because they are that race.

That's pretty much the definition of racism.

 

[Morti]

Answering the two questions in the title: Yes. No.

For the first one, yes it derogatory, yes it is racial, no I do not approve of its use.

For the socond one, please realise that most of the time, when this is argument occurs, the debate is largely about the definition of the word "racism", not any of the practical effects that people actually encounter in life.

Simply put, I, and many others, particuarly those on the recieving end, do not see any value in leaving "racism" as just "racial discrimination" as it masks the very real imbalance in who feels that discrimination the most. Now, in day to day language, maybe that doesn't matter so much, but when actively discussing these issues, it is important to make clear that there is a pre-existing imbalance.

So, when you hear us say "racism", try to hear "racial discrimination that contributes to an existing system of oppression", or there abouts.

So calling a black person a "n*" is racist because this further re-inforces existing negative stereotypes (to be brief)(also death by a thousands cuts).

Calling a white person a "cracker" is not racist because all that happens is their feelings get hurt (if that).

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Yes Cracker is racist because its used as a racist insult to white people. Its also a really retard insult as well. Anyone regardless of colour can be racist against another person thats a different colour. Only problem is racism against white people is not seen as a big deal to anyone.

 

[BreakfastMan]

I suppose it is, as it is one of a whole two derogatory terms for white people in English (the other being honky). But I highly doubt any white people are actually offended by it. Somebody already posted the Louis CK clip, so I will just echo the sentiments found there about the offensiveness of those terms.

As for being racist against white people... Yes, but it almost never happens in the US (there are only a few select areas where one could run into this, i.e. Hawaii) and only happens in Europe against very specific sub-groups of people (and even that is not consistent throughout the continent), to my understanding.

 

[Tilly]

Racism is just any time you judge people purely by their race, so by definition you can be racist against all races. I'm white but I've never even heard of "cracker" so it's not gonna bother me much.

 

[Lunar Templar]

is it just me or are people getting dumber? I mean a LOT dumber.

Racism and Sexism has to do with how you view the other persons race/gender more then how much better off they may or may not be.

 

[Sleepy Sol]

snip

Ehh, I'm not sure if I really fully agree with that conclusion. And it's not really what the OP is asking, though I guess wording that question in such a way is a rather big oversimplification of the complex issue of racial relations. It's obviously possible to be racist against any race, but there are a lot of 'degrees' that people assign to these issues. An idea I'm not always fully comfortable with either. In what way do you think '******' promotes negative stereotypes, though? I don't think that that's the issue with the word; just its association with the prolonged period of slavery of black people in the United States.

To answer the OP, it can be a derogatory term, and its application can easily be racist based on intent. But I kinda just find it hilarious. Much I like I find the word nigga hilarious. Which I have admitted here to using rather often in friendly conversation. Thusly, I am marked to never know the warmth of Escapist forum friendship ever again. Dang.

That there has to be any amount of mistrust because of some arbitrary thing like skin color between people who are effectively no different from each other really sucks. Though I guess it is very much understandable given hundreds of years of history to look back on.

 

[Vigormortis]

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?

Not when the implication is that that power is inherently evil, and that the target of the insult is just as evil.

It's a term used to place negative connotations on a person based on the color of that person's skin. If used derogatorily, the term, and those using it, are racist. Pure and simple.

Bigotry isn't a one-way street.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Yes (though not a very offensive one) and yes.

I'd thought that this would be obvious, but apparently some people weren't raised with the "treating someone differently because of their skin color is wrong, we're all similar on the inside so act accordingly" mentality that my parents instilled in me.

In short; the dictionary definition is the correct one.

Relatively recent efforts by 'Academia' to shift the goal posts, forcibly hammering caveats like power structures and oppression into a basic all-encompassing idea, is just disgusting. People insisting on parroting that nonsense in an obsequious fashion, hiding behind it to throw their stones in relative 'safety,' are equally loathsome and it speaks volumes about the character of any perpetrator.

Hell, you can even see this same argument being repeated in the comments on webster's site.

 

[senordesol]

Yes and yes.

I am tired of people who are looking for excuses to be bigots because either they or their ancestors caught an unlucky break.

The Power + Prejudice thing doesn't even make any sense.

How much power? How big a sphere of influence do you need? Where are these supposed hard lines between when someone is a raging racist and not?

 

[NiPah]

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.

That's quite a bold statement to make, also completely unprovable since we don't have a way to measure substantiality of amount of racism centered on a certain group.

Discrimination, hate crimes, how often police target them, etc. There's plenty of metrics of measurement.

Well, since you made the claim I'm going to have to ask you to back it up via some definitions (IE what qualifies as discrimination, hate crime, police targeting), find some studies or data, and support the argument that racism verses white people is unsubstantial when compared to black people in nations predominately populated by white people.

Like I said you made quite a bold claim, back it up.