Chazwozel, as is so often the case, is incorrect. You don't have to be in power to be racist. Racism, by definition, is simply the belief in delineating people merely by ethnicity. For example, what Krisken said. By Chaz's definition, calling her a "cracker" would not be racist because white people are in power.
Chaz, as is so often the case, gives you academically correct information that most scholars agree with, which of course counters GasBandit's typical blue-collar slob, pundit based bullshit. But hey, I just studied the history of 18th century colonization and civil rights in undergrad. It's not like I know what I'm actually talking about or anything. How on Earth can I compete with Denis "the biggest white victim on Earth" Leary's comedy skits.
I think you get most of your knowledge and insights from drunks at a bar.[/QUOTE]
Drunks in a bar > chazwozel's overeducated, underskilled, overcompensating colon.
So what you're saying is, by way of asserting academic correctness without academic backup (not to mention the Arguing from Authority fallacy), that you agree that a black person calling a white person a cracker is NOT racist because the black person isn't "in power?"[/QUOTE]
Wellman, David T. (1993).
Portraits of White Racism. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Feagin, Joe R. Racist America: Roots, Current Policies, and Future Reparations. New York: Routledge, 2000.
And btw you're right. A black person calling someone a cracker doesn't have the same effect as a white person calling someone a ******, does it? Hmm, why is that? Because the white person is still part of the dominant culture. 'Cracker' in- no way -has the same impact that '******' does.
Now shut the hell up.
[/FONT]
