White People! Are you offended being called a "Cracka"?

[Not Matt]

my ability to actually give a single s*** about someone calling me a cracker died at birth. honstly. how is calling someone a biscut an insult.

"Oh, ruined my day. he shouldn't have called me a cracker. making me think about owning land and people" -Louis ck

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

No, who gives a fuck? What am I meant to regret other white people having had slaves? You can't insult people by associating them with a position of power. At that stage you might as well disregard race and call them a ****, certainly offends me more, being someone who has never owned slaves, whose family has never owned slaves, and come to think of it, wouldn't think himself inferior in any way for owning slaves were it a thing he did.

in any seriuos sentence. why would you use this fake word that means absolutely nothing?

capcha: whitch one is food? answers including: science, germany. i choose science.

He just misspelled it, is all. [https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=flabbergasted&oq=flab&aqs=chrome.2.57j0l3.2815j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8]

not what i was talking about. The word itself is a expression construct and not a word. its like saying " the dog au at him because he didnt know him". no, the dog barked, and au is the sound he made. and you dont flabbergast. the word itself is a false construct.

I'm sorry what? You don't accept words that might be onomatopoeia? You realise 'mumble' is also a sound a person makes simplified and used as a verb to describe what they are doing when making it?

Captcha: what is your household income? - Fuck you Captcha, what is this? I'm not answering that. Make an ironic reference to something in my post, sure, but stay the fuck out of my personal life. Did Microsoft buy the site when I wasn't looking?
(And since I had to pick something) What? You think you know my income isn't over $150,000? Fuck you Captcha, maybe I do earn that. What do you know. Asshole Captcha. I'm done with the internet, fuck you.

Captcha 2: vote pancakes - ok, but I'm keeping my eye on you ************. Don't try to elicit my personal details again.

EDIT:

It wouldn't offend me, it's far too impersonal.

You'll have to do better than stock insults to get to me.

You're a member of a dying, outdated species who is only barely hanging on through human conservation efforts because you don't even have the drive to reproduce. You and all your relatives are going to die and you don't even care.

 

[San Martin]

Considering that white people have never spent hundreds of years being enslaved and oppressed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_slavery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor_in_Germany_during_World_War_II

Yeah, NO-ONE EVER enslaved white people.

It's also worth noting that black Africans have enslaved eachother just as long as Europeans, Middle Easterners, Asians and Native Americans have; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa

I hate to be the one to bring actual history to the table, but the Trans-Atlantic, North American slave trade did not invent slavery as a concept, so saying "THIS IS WHY ALL WHITES ARE THE DEVIL" is absolutely ridiculous.

I applaud you for attempting to educate people; learning a bit of history has never hurt anyone!

Unfortunately, one has to acknowledge that the public's perception isn't influenced so much by historical truth, as by representations in popular culture. So yes, you are right in saying that the trans-Atlantic slave trade is not the only example in history, but nonetheless, it is what is remembered by society and it is for that reason that language associated with it carries more negative connotations.

I'm sure you're already aware of this, but in most of the examples you cited it's generally the case that the victims are enslaved by people of a similar skin colour (for example white Nazis force other, mostly white, people to work), so from a that point of view, it's not so easy to start lobbing racial insults at each other.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

A person calls me a cracka, i will call them a nigga, and i dont expect any complaints. Thing is, a lot of black characters are racist and are written. When you watch any movies or tv, just listen when they say something like "Not bad shooting for a white guy" or something similar.

But as far as insults go, cracker is just stupid. I would find it hard not to laugh in their faces.

 

[somonels]

No, as I often try to crack wise so I take it as an encouragement. Using the topical word is like a nigga whipping himself.

Kinda related - is using the word ****** prohibited on this forum and that's why people use nigga? Which is still essentially the same.

This informative sketch will show you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NY1y1aggUA
God I love Boondocks.
OT: not really, get called it ALL the time by my friend. To be fair we take the piss outa each other a lot. Which can get awkward when her incredibly far left black power sister comes round.

I'm very familiar with the The Boondocks but that episode never clarified anything other than white people always being wrong, like with the PC name for coloured people - oops, I'm racist/insensitive again. Also, I don't acknowledge nigga as a different word but rather a bastardization caused by lacking education/pronounciation or regional accents. I just don't see how the africanized version is any less racist than the original. It would be like homos preferring themselves to be called fags.

 

[TheRookie8]

I much prefer the term "Cracker". I love crackers.

Though I suppose it is like "nigga" being synonymous with "******".

Ultimately, words only have enough power you allow them to have.

 

[Hero of Lime]

Honestly, I would be offended, if only because it still is meant to be an insult and show some malice. I've never been called any racial insult, but I would take it like I would any insult, because of the person's intent to make me feel bad, or try to get some response from me.

 

[HellbirdIV]

I'm sure you're already aware of this, but in most of the examples you cited it's generally the case that the victims are enslaved by people of a similar skin colour (for example white Nazis force other, mostly white, people to work), so from a that point of view, it's not so easy to start lobbing racial insults at each other.

If you assume that the only ethnic differences are "White", "Black" and "Asian". In reality, there are hundreds (possibly thousands, I can't recall) of separate ethnic groups of wildly varying appearances and cultural heritage.

For example, Greeks would enslave Slavs (where the word comes from), Romans enslaved Germanics and Gauls, Egyptians enslaved Jews - these ethnicities all look similar, but are distinct from one-another for various reasons.

 

[DEAD34345]

I wouldn't be "offended" as such, but only because I don't think there's a single thing any random person on the street could say to me that would offend me. It is a racist slur however, and assuming it's used as an actual insult (and not as a joke between friends or whatever) it's not any different from using the word "******". Discriminating people based on race is wrong, but the discrimination a person's ancestors may or may not have received doesn't come into that at all. A white person has as much right to not be discriminated against as a black person.

 

[Cartographer]

I also mentioned the French and Russians. They're all "white" but you'd be a fool if you couldn't tell the difference between them.

Wow, just Wow.
Talk about bigoted and ignorant.

Are you saying it's bigoted and ignorant to be able to tell the difference between someone from France and someone from Russia?

I'm saying it's bigoted to claim that all members of any nation are the same and ignorant to claim you can tell them apart, the implication of your post was such. Or are you saying that you somehow intrinsically know that Thierry Henri is French and Stanislav Lebamba is Russian, from looks alone?
How about Mo Farah, you can tell he's English how exactly?

First off, LMFAO. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Good job confusing nationality with genetics there, chief. There are certain genetic predispositions perpetuated within societies. It's like the Swedish/Finnish etc have a large population of blondes. It's for no other reason than that is the defining trait within the gene pool so it is replicated most often.

Your examples are people who have drawn their genes from a foreign source but live in this country. Unless one of their parents was a national then they wouldn't inherit any traits commonly associated with their place of birth.

People are not unique little snowflakes. They're boring, mundane and infinitely repetitive.

Talk about missing the point, might want to work on your reading comprehension skills there friend.

Nationality has nothing to do with race, nothing, hell both are basically artificial constructs we invented to define ourselves (usually in reference to "foreigners"). Claiming that you can identify someone's "nationality", in fact claiming that you would be a "fool" not to be able to tell the difference between two "whites", one from France and one from Russia is what I took issue with. It's a broad generalisation revealing the ignorance of the poster.

Your assertion that there are geographically isolated, inherited traits common to people of a specific area is fine, claiming they are anything to do with nationality is however, rubbish.

 

[Sectan]

I'm sorry, but there is not a world where Cracka or Cracker could offend any white person. Right? I mean I'm pretty sure any of hear the word our minds do not jump to our skin colour but to delicious Saltine crackers. It's like calling someone Spaghetti.

I'm not the type of person who would be offended by it, but cracker or cracka was used to refer to the slave owner/employee who would crack the whip to get the slaves to work. "Cracking the whip." If anything it would imply that the one using the word thinks that a person is racist.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I'd imagine it's like "beaner" but for white people. I dun care either way but if it's not a slur then that's a double standard.

 

[Aurora Firestorm]

I wouldn't care any more about this than any other insult.

 

[White Lightning]

Nah, but if you use the word then you shouldn't have a problem with me saying ******.

 

[O maestre]

i dont understand why the slur "pig-skin" or "piggie" never caught on it is more offensive and makes more sense since white people have complexions akin to pigs.

 

[San Martin]

I'm sure you're already aware of this, but in most of the examples you cited it's generally the case that the victims are enslaved by people of a similar skin colour (for example white Nazis force other, mostly white, people to work), so from a that point of view, it's not so easy to start lobbing racial insults at each other.

If you assume that the only ethnic differences are "White", "Black" and "Asian". In reality, there are hundreds (possibly thousands, I can't recall) of separate ethnic groups of wildly varying appearances and cultural heritage.

For example, Greeks would enslave Slavs (where the word comes from), Romans enslaved Germanics and Gauls, Egyptians enslaved Jews - these ethnicities all look similar, but are distinct from one-another for various reasons.

Sorry, I didn't express myself clearly enough. I apologise in advance for my excessive use of quotation marks; it's simply to express that "black" and "white" are artificial divisions which I don't consider to have biological significance.

I'm of course aware that "black" and "white" are both terms which describe hundreds of ethnic groups. What I'm trying to argue is that popular culture doesn't generally differentiate between them at a broad level, instead preferring these blanket terms. For example, I am Anglo-Saxon, and recognise that my ethnicity isn't exactly the same as a Slav's, or a Hispanic's. However, we are all "white". Likewise, different groups of people who are all generally conidered to be "black" don't claim to be one and the same. Or to take a different example outside of this debate, the Mapuche and the Quechua are entirely distinct ethnicities, but at the broadest level they'd both be called "Native American".

What I'm getting at is that it's harder for people to insult each other on racial terms when they're all of more or less the same skin tone (though not impossible, just look at the amount of racism shown to the Jews by other "whites"), whereas in the context of slavery in the USA, the simple fact that the oppresors and the oppressed had such differently coloured skin made it very easy to discriminate between them based purely on physical appearance.

There are two final points I'd like to make. Firstly, since the black/white divide is the most immediately relevant form of racism to US culture, and since it is precisely US culture which is most disseminated throughout the world through TV and cinema, it makes perfect sense that this issue should be more universally visible that other problems which rarely receive media attention outside their own country. Secondly, I would argue that the slavery you mentioned which was practised by the Romans, the ancient Egyptians, and during the Middle Ages, all happened so long ago that no one nowadays is likely feel a personal connection to them, so any racial conflicts which were involved back then become meaningless to anyone who doesn't study them academically.

Overall I'm not disagreeing with you. I think you made a valid point.

 

[Mikeyfell]

Nope.
I've even been called a cracker, I almost chuckled. I didn't (Cause I thought I'd get punched if I didn't pretend to be dejected by it)
It's odd, it just doesn't carry any weight for me.