You might be a white supremacist if ...

[MissBarbara]

. . . . if you think reverse racism is a worse problem than racism.

Great point!

[Pervertedneighbor]

. . . . if you think reverse racism is a worse problem than racism.

Great point!

There is no such thing as reverse racism.  If you make judgments about someone based solely on the color of their skin, it is racism pure and simple, even black against white.

It is a good thing children don't have to worry about this crap.  They will play one another without prejudice, unless their idiotic parents try to indoctrinate them
with all sorts of insane ideas.

[Jed_]

My opinion of you just had a slight increase PN. Again, a reasonable response from you.

[Sensualtravler]

. . . . if you think white privilege doesn’t exist.

. . . . if you think reverse racism is a worse problem than racism.

No such thing as reverse racism. You're either racist, or you're not.

[Lois]

I think I understood what PN meant, Lois; he said someone might be a white supremacist if they believe "those people wouldn't survive without our help", despite "those people" having been self-sufficient for many years.

Now for my own:
You might be a white supremacist if...you believe non-white asylum seekers should "go back to where they came from," despite the very real threats if they do so, but want open arms for whites at the slightest rumour of persecution.[cough, cough]Peter Dutton[cough, cough]

(Now I hope I've made myself clear.)

Ah, I see ...

You might be a white supremacist if you believe only non-white people need a hand up once in a while.  The truth is that more white people collect welfare and food stamps than any other group.

[Jed_]

. . . . if you think white privilege doesn’t exist.

. . . . if you think reverse racism is a worse problem than racism.

No such thing as reverse racism. You're either racist, or you're not.

I first heard the term ‘reverse racism’ from an article that said a polling of white people in the U.S. that most said reverse racism (where white people were being discriminated against) was a bigger problem than racism (where the assumption seem to be this was discrimination against non-whites but in particular black people).

So for those of you that say ‘reverse racism’ is not a valid term, which do you believe is a worse problem:  racism against black people or racism against white people?

[MissBarbara]

So for those of you that say ‘reverse racism’ is not a valid term, which do you believe is a worse problem:  racism against black people or racism against white people?

I say racism against people is the worst problem.

[Sensualtravler]

. . . . if you think white privilege doesn’t exist.

. . . . if you think reverse racism is a worse problem than racism.

No such thing as reverse racism. You're either racist, or you're not.

I first heard the term ‘reverse racism’ from an article that said a polling of white people in the U.S. that most said reverse racism (where white people were being discriminated against) was a bigger problem than racism (where the assumption seem to be this was discrimination against non-whites but in particular black people).

So for those of you that say ‘reverse racism’ is not a valid term, which do you believe is a worse problem:  racism against black people or racism against white people?

What is there about ALL racism is equally bad do you not understand? Why do some people try to quantify it? It's as if when a definitive answer is gotten, ones answer can only be used somehow as an excuse to trap  them into qualifying them as a racist. That's a Democratic ploy used for years against Republicans. One has to wonder after the question has been posed thousands of times, if the questioner will be satisfied with any answer but no, and it is the person asking the question that's really  the racist in  disguise?

[Athos_131]

What is there about ALL racism is equally bad do you not understand? Why do some people try to quantify it? It's as if when a definitive answer is gotten, ones answer can only be used somehow as an excuse to trap  them into qualifying them as a racist. That's a Democratic ploy used for years against Republicans. One has to wonder after the question has been posed thousands of times, if the questioner will be satisfied with any answer but no, and it is the person asking the question that's really  the racist in  disguise?

Do you deny white priviledge exists?

#Resist

[MissBarbara]

. . . . if you think white privilege doesn’t exist.

. . . . if you think reverse racism is a worse problem than racism.

No such thing as reverse racism. You're either racist, or you're not.

I first heard the term ‘reverse racism’ from an article that said a polling of white people in the U.S. that most said reverse racism (where white people were being discriminated against) was a bigger problem than racism (where the assumption seem to be this was discrimination against non-whites but in particular black people).

So for those of you that say ‘reverse racism’ is not a valid term, which do you believe is a worse problem:  racism against black people or racism against white people?

What is there about ALL racism is equally bad do you not understand? Why do some people try to quantify it? It's as if when a definitive answer is gotten, ones answer can only be used somehow as an excuse to trap  them into qualifying them as a racist. That's a Democratic ploy used for years against Republicans. One has to wonder after the question has been posed thousands of times, if the questioner will be satisfied with any answer but no, and it is the person asking the question that's really  the racist in  disguise?

Because racism (by anyone, toward anyone) and white privilege are two separate issues, and you're either conflating the two, or not understanding the difference between the two.

[Sensualtravler]

. . . . if you think white privilege doesn’t exist.

. . . . if you think reverse racism is a worse problem than racism.

No such thing as reverse racism. You're either racist, or you're not.

I first heard the term ‘reverse racism’ from an article that said a polling of white people in the U.S. that most said reverse racism (where white people were being discriminated against) was a bigger problem than racism (where the assumption seem to be this was discrimination against non-whites but in particular black people).

So for those of you that say ‘reverse racism’ is not a valid term, which do you believe is a worse problem:  racism against black people or racism against white people?

What is there about ALL racism is equally bad do you not understand? Why do some people try to quantify it? It's as if when a definitive answer is gotten, ones answer can only be used somehow as an excuse to trap  them into qualifying them as a racist. That's a Democratic ploy used for years against Republicans. One has to wonder after the question has been posed thousands of times, if the questioner will be satisfied with any answer but no, and it is the person asking the question that's really  the racist in  disguise?

Because racism (by anyone, toward anyone) and white privilege are two separate issues, and you're either conflating the two, or not understanding the difference between the two.

Oh,I understand the difference. That comes from age and experience.It's several here that doesn't, or willingly ignoring it to make it seem they're superior because of their ideologies.

[Sensualtravler]

. . . . if you think reverse racism is a worse problem than racism.

Great point!

There is no such thing as reverse racism.  If you make judgments about someone based solely on the color of their skin, it is racism pure and simple, even black against white.

It is a good thing children don't have to worry about this crap.  They will play one another without prejudice, unless their idiotic parents try to indoctrinate them
with all sorts of insane ideas.

100% correct PN.

[MissBarbara]

That's a Democratic ploy used for years against Republicans. One has to wonder after the question has been posed thousands of times, if the questioner will be satisfied with any answer but no, and it is the person asking the question that's really the racist in disguise?

Here's the thing: It's not the proclamations of non-bias that the Democrats judge the Republicans by, it's their specific words and actions. One can claim not to be a racist as loudly and longly as one wants, by when your words and actions say otherwise, your claims are invalidated.

[Athos_131]

...you are spouting "America First".

#Resist

[psiberzerker]

...you see Nazis marching down the streets, 117 miles from the Capital building, and talk about "Both sides."

There's not 2 sides, there's Nazis, and everyone else.  It's their theme song, that's what Uber Alles means.  If David Duke thinks they're allies, then he's wrong.  He's the means to an end.  Italy thought that at the beginning of the war, so did Russia.

The last time America was "great" we fought Nazis.  If Goldfinger thinks tolerating intolerance, and there's 2 sides to this issue.  Well, we already knew he was full of shit, but we didn't chose this quarter.  0 Tolerance, the Nazis did. 

The NRA are so busy protecting their Right to Bear Arms, they skipped right past the part about Militias, Safety, Security, and a Free State.  Look.

{Points}

Nazis.  Where were the good guys with guns?  Isn't that what they're there for?  Where were the militias when Nazis marched down the street, 117 miles from the Capital Building?  They can't protect schoolkids from lone gunmen, but if you can't see the Enemy, carrying that flag, and the fucking HIPPIES have to fight Nazis armed on our streets, then what do you need those guns fer, Obediah?

If you tolerate Nazi Sympathizers, you don't even have to be racist.  You can just stand bye, and let it happen.

Until they come for you.

[psiberzerker]

What is there about ALL racism is equally bad do you not understand?

Race is a myth.  It's a racist myth.  The only reason anyone has ever sorted people out by color is to set up a heirarchy with them on top.  Look at the Races here in America:

Caucasian:  Is Asian.  From the Caucasus, AKA the Steppes of Asia.  Now called Kazakhstan, prior to that, they were called Cossaks, and prior to that, everyone from Darius II (Son of Xerxes) to Atilla, and Ghengis rolled their continental armies through there.  

It's not where culture originated, it's the moshpit of humanity.  10s of thousands of years of war, nomads interbreeding, and incidentally where the Cro Magnans came from before they moved into Europe to interbreed with the Neanderthals.  

That's what Caucasian means.  Now, what do you think "Asian" means?  You know what European means, in Racial terms?  Basque.  The last native Europeans that didn't interbreed with the Cro-Magnans, or the Neanderthals on earth are the Basques.  One of the last living Races of humanity.

[MissBarbara]

Race is a myth.  It's a racist myth.  The only reason anyone has ever sorted people out by color is to set up a heirarchy with them on top.

Race isn't a myth, it's a social construct, and it's a social construct that has become a political construct. And this distinction is important.

And, as you outline below, the "races" as they have become defined are so vague that they're essentially meaningless.

I'm White, or a Caucasian. My skin isn't white, it's kinda light beige mixed with a little pink. And none of my ancestors, to the best of my knowledge, come from anywhere near the Caucuses. I'm of very mixed Western European descent, but that's not a race, and it's not even a specific national origin. Both terms are essentially meaningless, except int the vaguest of terms.

Or look at it another way. I have a friend who's husband grew in in Grenada, and moved here with his family when he was a teenager. He attained permanent residency, and later on married by friend, who's an American citizen of several generations. It took him a while to finally attain American citizenship, chiefly because he's a typical laid-back Caribbean guy, and meant to get to it at some point. About 10 years ago, before he finally became a citizen, he went to the DMV to renew his driver's license. On the form where it asked you to check your race, he checked "other." When he got to the window, the woman looked at the form, and looked at him, and said, "You should have checked African American." He explained that he's neither African nor American, so checking that would have been untruthful. And he had a point.

Look at the Races here in America:

Caucasian:  Is Asian.  From the Caucasus, AKA the Steppes of Asia.  Now called Kazakhstan, prior to that, they were called Cossaks, and prior to that, everyone from Darius II (Son of Xerxes) to Atilla, and Ghengis rolled their continental armies through there.  

It's not where culture originated, it's the moshpit of humanity.  10s of thousands of years of war, nomads interbreeding, and incidentally where the Cro Magnans came from before they moved into Europe to interbreed with the Neanderthals.  

That's what Caucasian means.  Now, what do you think "Asian" means?  You know what European means, in Racial terms?  Basque.  The last native Europeans that didn't interbreed with the Cro-Magnans, or the Neanderthals on earth are the Basques.  One of the last living Races of humanity.

You left out Hispanics/Latinos, whom the U.S. Census Department can't seem to make up their minds if they're a race or not. They're not, of course.

Hispanics and Latinos can be whiter than me (which is saying something) or coal black. They can be descendants of Western Europeans; descendants of North, Central, or South American indigenous peoples; and they can be descendants of Africans brought to this hemisphere by slave traders. And most are a combination of several of the above. And they don't even speak the same language. Over and above the fact that 200 million Brazilians speak Portuguese, many Hispanics/Latinos still speak indigenous tongues (Nahuatl, Quechua, Guarani, etc.).

In fact, if you read about the "Latino vs. Hispanic" debate, the lines become even blurrier, and even the Venn Diagrams that attempt to demonstrate the difference are often confusing or contradictory. Which leads me to wonder why a distinction is necessary in the first place?

The only reason anyone has ever sorted people out by color is to set up a heirarchy with them on top. 

I think that's definitely true, but it pops up in unlikely places.

For example, in Cuba the population is roughly divided into two main groups, people of mainly Spanish descent (like Castro or Andy Garcia) and people of mainly African descent, whose ancestors arrived on slave ships. Within Cuba there is a very strict hierarchy that places Cubans of Spanish descent on a much higher level than Cubans of African descent, and this strict division has many social, political, and, especially, economic effects.

Or, to take an example closer to home, within the Black community in the U.S. there is a hierarchy observed by some that distinguishes women by how light or dark their skin is. I'd been vaguely aware of this, but just last week I was chatting with a colleague, and I was very shocked when she explained it to me. According to her, there are many Black men who won't even look at a woman whose skin is "too dark," no matter how pretty or alluring she is. In social situations, many Black guys are interested in women following a strict continuum from lightest to darkest (and the darkest skin women often are the ones, to use the phrase, who go home alone). And this "culture" has the reverse effect on women. She told me that from the time she was in grade school, Black women rate themselves and other Black women around them following this same hierarchy, with the lightest skin women feeling superior over the others. In fact, she told me that a friend of hers, who has medium-dark skin, only looks for lighter-skinned Black men, because she wants her children to have the lightest skin possible.

As I said, I found this shocking, and very sad.

[psiberzerker]

You left out Hispanics/Latinos, whom the U.S. Census Department can't seem to make up their minds if they're a race or not. They're not, of course.

Not really, I started on the first Steppe.  You covered Latin America for me, thanks for that, but since Hispaña (Iberia) is right by where I left off, the Pyranees.  So, I'll pick up right around the Straight of Gibralter.

Before they Colonized the New World (Cristobal Colon, that is) they were Invaded by the Moors.  Repeatedly.  So, here's where we get into Political Correctness.  You may argue that race isn't a Myth, so I'll amend that, it's Based on Mythology.  Literally, the Racist creationists say that the Mark of Cain is why some races are darker (And ignore every other allele, including Blood Type.)

Gibralter is another one of those strategic locations that EVERYONE! went through, not because it was the shortest transcontintal distance, but because it was the inter-oceanic bottleneck between the Atlantic, and 5 of the 7 Seas.  

Now, take the Iber (Now called Basques) and mix with the Moors.  Repeatedly, then give them a couple galleons with 2 Portugese Caravels, and a Spanish Carrack.  Incidentally, Christobal was "italian, with the caveat that Crete was the state of Candia for the Venicians, and Eritrea was Tuscany.  (Dalmatia, where the first Immigrant wife is from was under contention between the Venetians, and the Barbers from the Despotates of Morea.  AKA Peleponesia, Greece.)

This is what Race means.  Nothing, and that's before the Missionaries Invaded (Sorry, Colonized) the new world, and started Genocide here.

What did Santayana say about history?  I forget.

[Athos_131]

... you also defend sexual assaulters.

#Resist

[IrishGirl]

How about this:

You might be a white supremacist if...

...you are shocked when you meet Black people that disagree with you

...you have used the term "Uncle Tom" to shame Black people into agreeing with you