Why can't whites be as racist as Malcolm X

Malcolm X was willing to modify his opinions when his previous ones were demonstrated to be incorrect, which is not a trait common to racists.
 
It's probably more racist to assume that Malcolm X's most extreme early stances on race is the dominant opinion of "blacks".

If it outrages you to think this is true then surely urging "whites" to emulate racist "blacks" doesn't make it any less wrong but only makes you a hypocrite.

It's like the pot calling the kettle a racist or something.
 
TFian said:
The world will always be racist, why can't we as a people face up to this fact?
Click to expand...

Yes, why can't we all come together, hand in hand, black and white, ebony and ivory, pink, brown, yellow, red and other colours as yet unknown to cry out in one voice for tolerance of that one thing that makes us all human in nature's eyes: our abiding and universal love of racism.

It would be a beautiful moment...
 
Gazpacho said:
Not when it's written into law.
Click to expand...

What an absurd non sequitur. What you're trying to say, it seems to me, is that at most, a few hundred whites in the US who enact a law now speak for the rest of the 2 billion or so whites in the rest of the world? Or maybe it's okay to limit white racism to just those whites currently living in the US?
 
The Norseman said:
What an absurd non sequitur. What you're trying to say, it seems to me, is that at most, a few hundred whites in the US who enact a law now speak for the rest of the 2 billion or so whites in the rest of the world? Or maybe it's okay to limit white racism to just those whites currently living in the US?
Click to expand...
I'm saying that it is not racism when a black person who has lived his life in a de jure white supremacist society, as Malcolm did, identifies white people as oppressors. What else is he supposed to think?

(And before you ask: Yes I would excuse a white person in a white supremacist society for having a white supremacist outlook, although he remains responsible for any oppressive acts he engages in.)
 
Last edited:
Gazpacho said:
I'm saying that it is not racism when a black person who has lived his life in a de jure white supremacist society, as Malcolm did, identifies white people as oppressors. What else is he supposed to think?

(And before you ask: Yes I would excuse a white person in a white supremacist society for having a white supremacist outlook, although he remains responsible for any oppressive acts he engages in.)
Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying for me.

To answer your (possibly rhetorical) question, I don't know what else he was supposed to think. Racism is when you take one or several characteristics and apply it to everyone based on skin color or ethnicity. Racism was prevalent back then, I suppose, though I wasn't alive to know.

Though, for example, my white parents protested for and supported racial and gender equality. They did it because it was the right thing to do. They expect no thanks for it or accolades, but it would be nice to be "judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin."
 
Gazpacho said:
I'm saying that it is not racism when a black person who has lived his life in a de jure white supremacist society, as Malcolm did, identifies white people as oppressors. What else is he supposed to think?
Click to expand...

I'm disagreeing with you. It's racism regardless of who does it and who it is aimed at.

In my view, Malcolm X is supposed to think the way he expected others to think. Claiming that he is exempt from the standard he sets for others because he has the right skin colour is as racist as saying he should be picking cotton on a plantation because he has the wrong skin colour.
 
qayak said:
In my view, Malcolm X is supposed to think the way he expected others to think. Claiming that he is exempt from the standard he sets for others.
Click to expand...
He expected others (whites, in this context) to think that they were worth something and he was worth nothing, because he had been watching them do it his entire life.
 
Last edited:
Information Analyst said:
Errr... what?!
Click to expand...

It's the part of the USA history that is entwined with the history of Ireland at the time of the potato famines. Have a google about "Nativistism" in America- it really brings home how these so called "racial identities" are entirely social and culturally created.
 
JadeStonesFromSaturn said:
To be fair, every group at some point has been oppressed. Even whites (by other whites, or Arabs, or what not).
Click to expand...

I think it's different when talking about the oppression of non-whites within the last few hundred years. While some groups, who happened to be what we would call white, have been discriminated against that's not the same the same wide-brush discrimination that non-whites received.

A couple hundred years ago if you were white, what was important was your country of origin and/or your religion, that is what determined the discrimination. But for blacks, all that mattered was that you were black. Similar thing for asians - it didn't matter where you were from, if you were from Asia, you had institutionalized discrimination. So there's a big difference there.

There might not be any socially acceptable "white pride" in modern times due to the negative connotation to that (with good reason). But there is plenty of various European culture pride - e.g. pride in being of Irish decent - which don't have that racist connotation.
 
To entertain the OPs question more directly, it is less unacceptable for a black person to be racist because it is usually less harmful.
 
Darat said:
That's a common complaint that comes up about a lot of minority groups that use a "proud to be ...." slogan and it's based on a misunderstanding of how the word is being used - its being used as a response to what society says to them.

Many minority groups are demonised or at the least made out to be less than ideal compared to "the majority" so are being told "You should be ashamed to be X" so adopting the "Proud to be..." slogan is saying "You say I should be ashamed about being X but I'm not going to be ashamed about who I am!"

Although some silly people claim that the majority are the ones being victimised it is not the case, so it would be quite strange for someone who is of "the majority" to say something like "I'm proud to be straight", since society is not telling them to be ashamed of being straight.
Click to expand...

You know as a member of several minority groups during my lifetime i can say i still find the dichotomy silly.

I'm bi, and i find the premise of a pride parade silly. We are a group of people that don't want to be singled out for who we are, so what do we do, single ourselves out because of who we are.

A slightly better example was back when punk rock wasn't dead and i was one of the lynchpins of the punk community. The punks would take every opportunity to segregate themselves from any other group, then spend time complaining that people treated them badly. Myself i had friends from most ends of the social spectrum.

Being who you are , and being accepted are two different things. One does not become accepted by focusing on their differences, we are all people, human pride, sure, **** those lions, but gay pride? White pride? Punk pride? No, not so much.
 
sadhatter said:
...snip...

Being who you are , and being accepted are two different things. One does not become accepted by focusing on their differences, we are all people, human pride, sure, **** those lions, but gay pride? White pride? Punk pride? No, not so much.
Click to expand...

You seem to have missed my explanation of the different ways the word pride can be used and gone for the meaning that isn't what the slogans "Proud to be..." are usually using but then end up with the meaning it is meant to have! I.e. "we are all people human pride sure". The "human pride" is exactly what the message is meant to be e.g. "I am proud to be who I am even if you say I should be ashamed of being me".

I've never been enamoured of the "Proud to be..." slogans because they can be easily misunderstood and also manipulated to cause problems for the minority group. Saying that 20 odd years ago I was willing to walk in marches under slogans like "Proud to be gay" - being spat at by the police who were there to "protect" us had a way of making most people even more determined to protest and proclaim that they were not ashamed to be gay.
 
bonzombiekitty said:
I think it's different when talking about the oppression of non-whites within the last few hundred years. While some groups, who happened to be what we would call white, have been discriminated against that's not the same the same wide-brush discrimination that non-whites received.

A couple hundred years ago if you were white, what was important was your country of origin and/or your religion, that is what determined the discrimination. But for blacks, all that mattered was that you were black. Similar thing for asians - it didn't matter where you were from, if you were from Asia, you had institutionalized discrimination. So there's a big difference there.

There might not be any socially acceptable "white pride" in modern times due to the negative connotation to that (with good reason). But there is plenty of various European culture pride - e.g. pride in being of Irish decent - which don't have that racist connotation.
Click to expand...

This is a very euro-centric position. In areas not under European control this would certainly not have been true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom