Part of being Privileged is not having to think about being Privileged

[Shadow Wolf]

How about attitudes toward the use of "honky" or "cracker"? That's a rather obvious one.

I admit, I find the term "honky" to be a funny one just because of the way it sounds. According to the Straight Dope though (I was curious about it), it was originally a word against Hungarians, Polish, and Bohemian that eventually came to be used against all Caucasians. Or the Wolof term honq, "red/pink" which is typically used to describe white men in African languages. Also when I learned that "cracker" probably comes from referring to the guy cracking the whip, it took the fun out of asking "what kind" when someone tries to use the term.
The Straight Dope: What's the origin of "honky"?

 

[ignition]

To demean someone based on the color of their skin is either wrong or it isn't. Whether or not they're perceived to be "privileged" or not is wholly irrelevant. It doesn't justify bigotry. If a white person were to go to an African nation where he would be a minority, is he suddenly entitled to spout derogatory racial slurs towards the local majority? Of course not.

You're right, but it becomes less of an issue. It's pretty difficult to feel offended when most people around you are white as well and whites have the most power. If you went to a black country and tried to insult them, it doesn't have a great impact at all, because you would be the minority there, and might even have less rights in the first place, so you would effectively be throwing stones in a glass house. I feel this should be there mostly to protect minorities, rather than majorities, because minorities can be more easily persecuted and racial insults could spiral into racial violence, which would make the minorities the losers not the majorities.

 

[Father Heathen]

He was acquitted. Plus, his life was interrupted because he murdered somebody, not because he was a racist. If you don't want people questioning you're motives, probably you shouldn't murder somebody.

Such melodramatic hyperbole.

 

[Father Heathen]

You're right, but it becomes less of an issue. It's pretty difficult to feel offended when most people around you are white as well and whites have the most power. If you went to a black country and tried to insult them, it doesn't have a great impact at all, because you would be the minority there, and might even have less rights in the first place, so you would effectively be throwing stones in a glass house. I feel this should be there mostly to protect minorities, rather than majorities, because minorities can be more easily persecuted and racial insults could spiral into racial violence, which would make the minorities the losers not the majorities.

The point is, none of that justifies demeaning a person solely due to the color of their skin. Either racism is wrong, or it isn't. You have to be consistent.

 

[Magic Man]

The point is, none of that justifies demeaning a person solely due to the color of their skin. Either racism is wrong, or it isn't. You have to be consistent.

Sure, I think we all agree with that, but that still doesn't make the N word and "honky" equivalent.

 

[Father Heathen]

Sure, I think we all agree with that, but that still doesn't make the N word and "honky" equivalent.

Why not? They're both disparaging slurs towards specific races. Why should perceptions of "privilege" excuse prejudice?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

He was acquitted. Plus, his life was interrupted because he murdered somebody, not because he was a racist. If you don't want people questioning you're motives, probably you shouldn't murder somebody.

He didn't murder anyone; he killed Trayvon Martin in self defense. The only reason the case went to trial in the first place was public outrage over fabricated racism; people always fail to remember there were initially no arrests in the case. The media bent over backwards to portray Zimmerman (who is Latino) as a racist white man.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Why not? They're both disparaging slurs towards specific races. Why should perceptions of "privilege" excuse prejudice?

What white person actually gets offended at being called "cracker"? Oh, God forbid you bring them back to the days of owning land and people :sarcastic...

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Same here. I hate it when people jump through hoops to avoid saying "black". Hear it all the time at work. One of my managers is a black guy; when customers want me to get him for them they're like, "the... taller gentleman. With the curlier hair." I always pretend not to know who they're talking about until they say the words lol. Also, always love the face on people when I introduce them to my black stepfather, who I call Dad. Priceless.

[youtube]DCrDuGyZ6FA[/youtube]

(Borderline NSFW due to language.)

 

[Magic Man]

Why not? They're both disparaging slurs towards specific races. Why should perceptions of "privilege" excuse prejudice?

Excuse it? I don't know. But they should definitely be treated differently.

Think of it this way: When slavery was still going on in America, would a slave calling a white man a honky or something similar be that bad?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

How about attitudes toward the use of "honky" or "cracker"? That's a rather obvious one.

I don't see the problem. Is the history of these terms equivalent to the use of the n-word? If you know something I don't, please share.

 

[Poeticus]

Namaste,

Is George Zimmerman White?

M.V.

 

[Father Heathen]

What white person actually gets offended at being called "cracker"? Oh, God forbid you bring them back to the days of owning land and people :sarcastic...

It's more about the intent, as with any word or phrase. Personally I don't find it or any other racial slur to be offensive. I'm just shaking my head at the hypocrisy is all.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Namaste,

Is George Zimmerman White?

M.V.

Nope, all Latino.

 

[Father Heathen]

Excuse it? I don't know. But they should definitely be treated differently.

That's what everyone here is saying, but they're reluctant to elaborate as to why.

Think of it this way: When slavery was still going on in America, would a slave calling a white man a honky or something similar be that bad?

Well, under abuse and duress it's understandable, especially when directed specifically at those oppressing them. By the same logic, would you consider American POWS during the Vietnam conflict or the WWII Pacific theater referring to their captors as "gooks" to be that bad? Or maybe that Paula Dean incident, where she called the man who held her a gunpoint a racial slur (which years later surfaced and ruined her career)?

 

[Me Myself]

Latino aint different from white.

I am a white Latino. Mostly spanish and german blood, to my knowledge, no blood of indigenous people (though I suck at family trees, but I am almost sure)

The thing is that the climate changes the coloration of your skin. A teacher in my college who has been living here for 50 years says her skin is less white than a lot of her family members and it was the same color before she started living in Ecuador. She is from Texas. (she is white)

So while I was born having white skin color the color of my skin today is not "white" anymore. There still seems to be a mostly clear distinction from other who have indigenous people in their families .

If I go to US, I am still a "latino" simply because I was born here, even though as I said I am white and I am so even though the non-so-white color of my skin doesnt really have to do with race so the term latino is an interesting one.

 

[Father Heathen]

I don't see the problem. Is the history of these terms equivalent to the use of the n-word? If you know something I don't, please share.

All I know is that they're both derogatory terms for specific races. If they're not equivalent, then it's you who knows something that I don't, so why don't you share?

 

[Revoltingest]

Why not? They're both disparaging slurs towards specific races. Why should perceptions of "privilege" excuse prejudice?

I concur. Intent is dang near everything.
We shouldn't excuse racism by those who see themselves as a victim class.
Politicians like Charles Rangel should not so easily get away with inciting racial hatred.
Charles Rangel rants about ‘white crackers’ in connection with Tea Party - NYPOST.com

 

[MysticSang'ha]

All I know is that they're both derogatory terms for specific races. If they're not equivalent, then it's you who knows something that I don't, so why don't you share?

I don't see them as being remotely equivalent because of the topic of this thread, which focuses on those who belong to a privileged class. However, I can't see how calling a white person a cracker is historically used in the same manner as calling a black person the n-word.

I look at it as similar to calling a powerful business owner "The Man" in a way that suggests somebody is going to "Stick it to The Man." It's derogatory, but not from a place of privilege. The terms "honky" or "cracker" don't come from a place of privilege, either.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't see them as being remotely equivalent because of the topic of this thread, which focuses on those who belong to a privileged class. However, I can't see how calling a white person a cracker is historically used in the same manner as calling a black person the n-word.

I look at it as similar to calling a powerful business owner "The Man" in a way that suggests somebody is going to "Stick it to The Man." It's derogatory, but not from a place of privilege. The terms "honky" or "cracker" don't come from a place of privilege, either.

Would we all agree that the lack of precise equivalence is insufficient justification to tolerate racist, sexist or otherwise bigoted slurs from minorities & other traditional victim classes?
What bothers me is that we saw excuses in the Zimmerman trial for black folk using racist terms for white folk, eg, "that's just the way they speak".