White on white hate crime
Ah Poland. Europe's punching bag.
That's also why it doesn't make sense to talk about white and black culture outside of USA because the cultures are so different from country to country in Europe and there's a pecking order going on amongst white people. Even people from, say, the Middle East will rarely say "You white people" but rather "You French/German/Norwegian/and-so-on people"
Now, is it racism? It depends on how much you buy into the idea of race. A Dane who hates Swedes wouldn't call that racist, but people from Eastern Europe start to look different enough that it's often called racism, and in a way that plays into the negative feelings too. It's complicated.
Europe America Poland
3rd November 2017
7 years ago #9696278
0
0
@KofodDane
Exactly! Hate everyone equally, most importantly. Because hating hispanos a little less than asians is racist!
Exactly! Hate everyone equally, most importantly. Because hating hispanos a little less than asians is racist!
7 years ago #9696296
0
0
@KofodDane
Okay.
Uh, fuck you and your family.
I hate you.
Does that feel good?
(hope irony works.... Danish people are good with irony)
Okay.
Uh, fuck you and your family.
I hate you.
Does that feel good?
(hope irony works.... Danish people are good with irony)
show replies
7 years ago #9696712
0
0
@DarkMage7280 Well, irony does work, but you aren't quite there yet 
As a dane, I must say that we really appreciate when people outside our borders try themselves with irony... We love it <3 it always gives us something to talk about ^_^
But you fail to see the point with this post... I can refer to Beetle Bailey, when Capt. Yo ask Beetle if he hates Lt. Flap if he hates him because he is black, but the reply is, that Bettle hates him because he is an officer ^_^
We don't hate you because you aren't a dane, we hate you because you are there... We hate everyone!
As a dane, I must say that we really appreciate when people outside our borders try themselves with irony... We love it <3 it always gives us something to talk about ^_^
But you fail to see the point with this post... I can refer to Beetle Bailey, when Capt. Yo ask Beetle if he hates Lt. Flap if he hates him because he is black, but the reply is, that Bettle hates him because he is an officer ^_^
We don't hate you because you aren't a dane, we hate you because you are there... We hate everyone!
7 years ago #9696194
20
16
People, in the midst of this "all white people are racist and rich" narrative, printed out simple flyers that said "It's okay to be white", and now colleges are going on f*ckin' manhunts to find the people who did this. Yes, it's 100% possible for whites to hate whites. It's called Oikophobia, and every college liberal has it.
show replies
7 years ago #9699391
0
0
@Theomniadept
If we actually thought you made a valid argument, you'd have proved your own point. As another commenter said, "Pot, meet kettle."
Did you read past the headlines? The stunt originated on an internet site as a Halloween prank - a site shall not be named here since discussions in that chatroom have led to violence on the streets. Some of the signs were stickers and were stuck on institutional or private property without permission.
Intentionally inflammatory stunts by stupid college kids aren't oikophobia, dear. Not even close.
P.S. Did YOU put those signs up?
If we actually thought you made a valid argument, you'd have proved your own point. As another commenter said, "Pot, meet kettle."
Did you read past the headlines? The stunt originated on an internet site as a Halloween prank - a site shall not be named here since discussions in that chatroom have led to violence on the streets. Some of the signs were stickers and were stuck on institutional or private property without permission.
Intentionally inflammatory stunts by stupid college kids aren't oikophobia, dear. Not even close.
P.S. Did YOU put those signs up?
show replies
7 years ago #9701041
0
1
@duster00 Face it kiddo - the signs just said "It's okay to be white." Full stop. And all the Lefties broke down into autistic screeching and every college dean on every campus involved came out and said it *isn't* okay to be white. Those guys on 4chan told everyone their plan, told everyone it would make them look like the racist assholes they are...
.....and the Left did exactly what they were expected to. Even knowing about the prank beforehand. And every time this happens the average person is driven away from the Left and towards the side of Basic Logic.
Funny how all the 'violence in the streets' seems to be lefties in Antifa attacking women and the elderly. Oh, wait, one time some white guys held tiki torches, therefore all violence against all white people is 100% justified, amirite?
.....and the Left did exactly what they were expected to. Even knowing about the prank beforehand. And every time this happens the average person is driven away from the Left and towards the side of Basic Logic.
Funny how all the 'violence in the streets' seems to be lefties in Antifa attacking women and the elderly. Oh, wait, one time some white guys held tiki torches, therefore all violence against all white people is 100% justified, amirite?
7 years ago #9701734
0
0
@duster00 Now holdon. Its true that inflammatoey stunts arent oikophobia. I dont even think what he is describing is oikophobia because although the hate seems to revolve around race, its not *directed* at race, and if there is any white hating involved its self-hate. And its true that 4chan has a lot of branking and done by inflammatory reasons.
But i think youre being a bit misleading. Ive also seen the original posts, and it appears at least to me that the posters were honest and do think people have forgotten that its ok to be white, and do think white people are getting flack and hate for being white, and want this to stop. Theyre also very pro free speech there, and not just so they can troll. Although im sure some posted for laughs, i think its believable to think that they also wanted people to question themselves. Ive had to unfollow several friends on facebook cause they wouldnt stop viciously attacking anyone for showimg white pride and i couldnt get them to turn their concern into compassion and questioning. The reactionary treatmemt was intense and i still have people not believe me when i tell them this.
It shouldnt matter if he put the signs up. And he expressed no hate towards other people, so its hardly pot kettle. jUst as it doesnt super matter why the signs were put up. That was the point. To show the world that reporters would frequently make unwarranted assumptions about intent for anything explicitly putting white people in a positive light. News places did assume the posters were racists trying to instigate racial tensions instead of trying to sooth young white people's worries, an equally plausible reason, plus the sign said nothing hateful or violent in the first place. Its really sad, we should be better than this. It should be ok to be any race.
But dont just listen to me. If yall curious about the creation of this event, search "its ok to be white knowyourmeme" and look yourself at the least, and maybe spend some significant time on 4chan to understand thre mindset (the last one may be harder simce half of everything is sarcasm and the posters were one of many subgroups on 4chan).
But i think youre being a bit misleading. Ive also seen the original posts, and it appears at least to me that the posters were honest and do think people have forgotten that its ok to be white, and do think white people are getting flack and hate for being white, and want this to stop. Theyre also very pro free speech there, and not just so they can troll. Although im sure some posted for laughs, i think its believable to think that they also wanted people to question themselves. Ive had to unfollow several friends on facebook cause they wouldnt stop viciously attacking anyone for showimg white pride and i couldnt get them to turn their concern into compassion and questioning. The reactionary treatmemt was intense and i still have people not believe me when i tell them this.
It shouldnt matter if he put the signs up. And he expressed no hate towards other people, so its hardly pot kettle. jUst as it doesnt super matter why the signs were put up. That was the point. To show the world that reporters would frequently make unwarranted assumptions about intent for anything explicitly putting white people in a positive light. News places did assume the posters were racists trying to instigate racial tensions instead of trying to sooth young white people's worries, an equally plausible reason, plus the sign said nothing hateful or violent in the first place. Its really sad, we should be better than this. It should be ok to be any race.
But dont just listen to me. If yall curious about the creation of this event, search "its ok to be white knowyourmeme" and look yourself at the least, and maybe spend some significant time on 4chan to understand thre mindset (the last one may be harder simce half of everything is sarcasm and the posters were one of many subgroups on 4chan).
7 years ago #9696205
18
0
It has been a thing in America for years, "No Irish" or "Irish need not apply", immigration limitations. Same goes for Italians, Polish people, and the French (although to a lesser extent). America, being the mixing pot that it is (300 million people and counting) and spread out over a landmass around 2 times larger than Europe ( this is including the states of Alaska and Hawaii, France is about the same size as the state of Texas) and we get a wide variety of regional sub cultures which can lead to disputes like how the Swedish and Danes often fight. In America the definition of racism is hotly debated, in the sense that generally it means that you hate someone because of their skin color or nation of origin verses actual systems of power which institutionalize and legitimize those hatreds/prejudices.
So when Sister America asks if white Americans can be the target of racism, some Americans will say yes because some people hate white people (the first definition of the term) and others will say not at the moment because there is a lack of institutionalized racism. This is the pickle, because we have been racist agains white people in the past, and we can see it's effects still in parts of our culture (the way Americans celebrate St Patricks day, the ongoing fights between Yankee/Dixie divisions on the East coast amongst others) but is it a problem now? Some people think so, and they are loud and violent.
So when Sister America asks if white Americans can be the target of racism, some Americans will say yes because some people hate white people (the first definition of the term) and others will say not at the moment because there is a lack of institutionalized racism. This is the pickle, because we have been racist agains white people in the past, and we can see it's effects still in parts of our culture (the way Americans celebrate St Patricks day, the ongoing fights between Yankee/Dixie divisions on the East coast amongst others) but is it a problem now? Some people think so, and they are loud and violent.
show replies
7 years ago #9696735
0
0
@Realta I believe that you have the land mass of the European Union mixed up with that of the continent of Europe.
European Union - 4,422,773 km2
Europe - 10,180,000 km2
European Union - 4,422,773 km2
Europe - 10,180,000 km2
7 years ago #9698365
0
0
@Realta
When racism existed against Irish, Italians, and other white ethnicities in the USA, they weren't actually considered white at the time. The murkiness comes in because race is a social construct, and what is considered white or not white changes over time.
When racism existed against Irish, Italians, and other white ethnicities in the USA, they weren't actually considered white at the time. The murkiness comes in because race is a social construct, and what is considered white or not white changes over time.
7 years ago #9697725
13
0
I had to read a scholarly paper in college that basically said african-americans could not be considered racist for hating white people because they were justified by their past history. That seems like so much BS to me, since any two groups with a
'history" could justify hatred.
'history" could justify hatred.
show replies
7 years ago #9697813
1
0
@HoosierBob2 yep just ask the english and the french, the welsh and english, the irish and english, the scottish and english
7 years ago #9697836
3
2
@HoosierBob2
Are you sure you've read the paper properly? Or understood it? Or remember it, if we are to believe your stated age... Because I would bet that the paper was talking about justified hatred vs unjustified; any group of oppressed people are justified in their hatred of oppressor, therefore their hate may not be seen as an evidence of racism.
Hatred of blacks towards whites in 1950-ies, for example, was completely justified and wasn't evidence of black racism at all. Same with hatred of blacks towards whites in South Africa during apartheid, for example.
However, there is a difference between current oppression and the memory of past oppression. Oppression that happened in the past, so that neither oppressor nor oppressed are alive, can't be a justification for current hatred. However, the consequences of past oppression do not die out with oppressor/oppressed, but continue to linger and are necessary to be fixed. Thus the need for some kinds of affirmative actions and so on.
Are you sure you've read the paper properly?
Or understood it? Or remember it, if we are to believe your stated age... Because I would bet that the paper was talking about justified hatred vs unjustified; any group of oppressed people are justified in their hatred of oppressor, therefore their hate may not be seen as an evidence of racism. Hatred of blacks towards whites in 1950-ies, for example, was completely justified and wasn't evidence of black racism at all. Same with hatred of blacks towards whites in South Africa during apartheid, for example.
However, there is a difference between current oppression and the memory of past oppression. Oppression that happened in the past, so that neither oppressor nor oppressed are alive, can't be a justification for current hatred. However, the consequences of past oppression do not die out with oppressor/oppressed, but continue to linger and are necessary to be fixed. Thus the need for some kinds of affirmative actions and so on.
show replies
7 years ago #9698088
1
0
@Grahor
I would agree with Ninian's comment but also add I disagree with where you say
" Hatred of blacks towards whites in 1950-ies, for example, was completely justified and wasn't evidence of black racism at all. Same with hatred of blacks towards whites in South Africa during apartheid, for example."
There are justifiable reasons for opposing bigots and oppressors but not for painting all people in an ethnic group as being the same. To me that is the definition of racism. After all a lot of whites in the US and some in SA supported the ending of discrimination and especially in the former case, where blacks were a relatively small minority, reform was only possible because a lot of whites supported it. True as events in recent years show the process is far from complete but much progress has been made and while black reformers have played a large role that would be impossible without substantial support from a lot of the white population.
I would also avoid hating anyone. Its one thing to despise or oppose a people or group who act in ways you think repulsive but hatred in itself is empty and self-destructive.
I would agree with Ninian's comment but also add I disagree with where you say
" Hatred of blacks towards whites in 1950-ies, for example, was completely justified and wasn't evidence of black racism at all. Same with hatred of blacks towards whites in South Africa during apartheid, for example."
There are justifiable reasons for opposing bigots and oppressors but not for painting all people in an ethnic group as being the same. To me that is the definition of racism. After all a lot of whites in the US and some in SA supported the ending of discrimination and especially in the former case, where blacks were a relatively small minority, reform was only possible because a lot of whites supported it. True as events in recent years show the process is far from complete but much progress has been made and while black reformers have played a large role that would be impossible without substantial support from a lot of the white population.
I would also avoid hating anyone. Its one thing to despise or oppose a people or group who act in ways you think repulsive but hatred in itself is empty and self-destructive.
show replies
7 years ago #9698247
0
0
@stevep59
>*There are justifiable reasons for opposing bigots and oppressors but not for painting all people in an ethnic group as being the same.*
It's all very well in theory, when you have the possibility to look at the situation from the big point of view, knowing things you know now. But imagine yourself a rather uneducated black person somewhere in deep south where every white person you've met in your life, even the best of them, don't think yourself equal to them. And the worst of them, well...
It all depends on your situation.
Obviously, there were plenty of people who could see and understand that white people aren't a uniform group, and who were very discerning in their emotions towards different groups of people. But plenty of people just weren't in the situation where they could differentiate.
>*I would also avoid hating anyone. Its one thing to despise or oppose a people or group who act in ways you think repulsive but hatred in itself is empty and self-destructive.*
*smirk* yeah, in the long view, while sitting on your very-very prosperous butt in your very-very prosperous life where you can spend a significant amount of time thinking about the big picture, yeah. But it's a very human emotion and it's really necessary for humanity, in some situations - sometimes it's the only thing that stops you from blowing your own brains out.
>*There are justifiable reasons for opposing bigots and oppressors but not for painting all people in an ethnic group as being the same.*
It's all very well in theory, when you have the possibility to look at the situation from the big point of view, knowing things you know now. But imagine yourself a rather uneducated black person somewhere in deep south where every white person you've met in your life, even the best of them, don't think yourself equal to them. And the worst of them, well...
It all depends on your situation.
Obviously, there were plenty of people who could see and understand that white people aren't a uniform group, and who were very discerning in their emotions towards different groups of people. But plenty of people just weren't in the situation where they could differentiate.
>*I would also avoid hating anyone. Its one thing to despise or oppose a people or group who act in ways you think repulsive but hatred in itself is empty and self-destructive.*
*smirk* yeah, in the long view, while sitting on your very-very prosperous butt in your very-very prosperous life where you can spend a significant amount of time thinking about the big picture, yeah. But it's a very human emotion and it's really necessary for humanity, in some situations - sometimes it's the only thing that stops you from blowing your own brains out.
show replies
7 years ago #9698432
0
0
@Grahor
I can understand why someone in the sort of position you mention may indulge in race hatred themselves. My point was that its not only morally wrong its pointless and destructive for them. Both because they make the same mistake as their opponents and because they undermined their own cause and alienate potential allies.
There are plenty of human emotions and some of them such as hatred are purely negative. That doesn't mean their worthwhile or useful. Hatred is generally used by the lazy who want simple solutions and don't want to make the effort to think. X is different from me so I've assume their evil/hate them is easy but destructive. Actually bothering to think about let alone getting some understanding of another person's point of view is essential if your ever going to resolve differences, unless you going alone the mass slaughter route.
Note that understanding someone else's point of view doesn't mean agreeing with or even accepting it. However even when you utterly oppose it your in a better position to do so if you have some idea as to what's behind it. For instance with groups like the Nazis your better off having some understanding of what motivates them to:
a) Know that you need to oppose them. This was the problem with the appeasers. They thought the Nazis would respond reasonably to concessions. Hence opportunities to defeat them quickly were lost and many more people died.
b) Know how best to oppose them. How to best motivate your own people and others to stand up to them and how to undermine their own support as well as what ways they would react to circumstances.
The same could be said with the current problem with Islamic Reactionaries. You will never solve the problem by assuming "their Muslims so hate all Muslims". You need to know how to identify the degenerate extremists from the ordinary population, both physically and in terms of support.
As such my argument is both moral and practical.
I can understand why someone in the sort of position you mention may indulge in race hatred themselves. My point was that its not only morally wrong its pointless and destructive for them. Both because they make the same mistake as their opponents and because they undermined their own cause and alienate potential allies.
There are plenty of human emotions and some of them such as hatred are purely negative. That doesn't mean their worthwhile or useful. Hatred is generally used by the lazy who want simple solutions and don't want to make the effort to think. X is different from me so I've assume their evil/hate them is easy but destructive. Actually bothering to think about let alone getting some understanding of another person's point of view is essential if your ever going to resolve differences, unless you going alone the mass slaughter route.
Note that understanding someone else's point of view doesn't mean agreeing with or even accepting it. However even when you utterly oppose it your in a better position to do so if you have some idea as to what's behind it. For instance with groups like the Nazis your better off having some understanding of what motivates them to:
a) Know that you need to oppose them. This was the problem with the appeasers. They thought the Nazis would respond reasonably to concessions. Hence opportunities to defeat them quickly were lost and many more people died.
b) Know how best to oppose them. How to best motivate your own people and others to stand up to them and how to undermine their own support as well as what ways they would react to circumstances.
The same could be said with the current problem with Islamic Reactionaries. You will never solve the problem by assuming "their Muslims so hate all Muslims". You need to know how to identify the degenerate extremists from the ordinary population, both physically and in terms of support.
As such my argument is both moral and practical.
7 years ago #9698034
3
0
@HoosierBob2
History does not justifies harrasment in modern day.
History never justifies harrasment, persecution, and hatred. There are human lives, and there is history - and trying to "right" the wrongsof the past by comitting new wrongs today achieves nothing. It is literal "circle" of hatred, and it goes on, and on, and on, as long as people do no abandon strife for self-satisfaction through humiliation and destruction of others.
And only thing that hatred achieves is anger in return, unless it is stopped. Rationally, permanently, and responsibly.
And while it is not done - economies break, societies get opressed, people suffer.
History does not justifies harrasment in modern day.
History never justifies harrasment, persecution, and hatred. There are human lives, and there is history - and trying to "right" the wrongsof the past by comitting new wrongs today achieves nothing. It is literal "circle" of hatred, and it goes on, and on, and on, as long as people do no abandon strife for self-satisfaction through humiliation and destruction of others.
And only thing that hatred achieves is anger in return, unless it is stopped. Rationally, permanently, and responsibly.
And while it is not done - economies break, societies get opressed, people suffer.
7 years ago #9697196
12
8
There is racism against whites in Sweden but the state and politicians says it's okay because whites are a majority
down voting proves me right
down voting proves me right
show replies
7 years ago #9697274
2
1
@Juhani
*down voting proves me right*
Because it's the state and politicians who are downvoting you...
*down voting proves me right*
Because it's the state and politicians who are downvoting you...
7 years ago #9697288
0
1
@Juhani -- I am ready to upvote you and thereby to prove you wrong.
show replies
7 years ago #9697319
4
1
@Wondercat
Nah, that's the trick with them. Upvoting proves them right, because clearly people agree with them. Downvoting proves them right because it "proves" they are really being oppressed and sidelined while foreigners and refugees get preferrential treatment, it's the victim's role they love showcasing themselves in. And saying nothing proves them right because they standpoint is clearly acceptable then.
Nah, that's the trick with them. Upvoting proves them right, because clearly people agree with them. Downvoting proves them right because it "proves" they are really being oppressed and sidelined while foreigners and refugees get preferrential treatment, it's the victim's role they love showcasing themselves in. And saying nothing proves them right because they standpoint is clearly acceptable then.
7 years ago #9700437
0
0
@Juhani
Aside a few extremists no one says hateful speeches is "okay". There not being a specific law with regards to hate-speech against whites doesn't mean radical anti-white groups won't get thrown in prison (or out of the country if they aren't citizens) if the police determines that the group constitutes a threat to society.
With that said, most immigrants are quite happy to have come to Sweden, and have no love for those of their fellow countrymen who go around kicking over bins and shouting slurs.
If you feel victimised by immigrants calling you slurs, imagine how bad it is for the well-behaved and ambitious immigrants who end up associated with those foul-mouthed nitwits.
Aside a few extremists no one says hateful speeches is "okay". There not being a specific law with regards to hate-speech against whites doesn't mean radical anti-white groups won't get thrown in prison (or out of the country if they aren't citizens) if the police determines that the group constitutes a threat to society.
With that said, most immigrants are quite happy to have come to Sweden, and have no love for those of their fellow countrymen who go around kicking over bins and shouting slurs.
If you feel victimised by immigrants calling you slurs, imagine how bad it is for the well-behaved and ambitious immigrants who end up associated with those foul-mouthed nitwits.
7 years ago #9700667
0
1
@Juhani Well, as a Pole living in Sweden I can tell that you are at least partially right. Don't know about the politicians, because I do not follow Swedish news or politics whatsoever. But so far literally EVERY immigrant in this country I've ever talked to said that there is clear racism in Sweden. Basically If you're not Swedish, you are by default less valuable than someone born here. It doesn't matter what you know, what you can, what kind of person you are. A Swedish employer will always look down on you for not being named "Svensson" or "Andersson" or whatever. The worst thing though is that at the same time Swedes are going to get super offensive if you tell them they're racist. And they are not racist "in your face". Which to me makes it worse. Because an open racism is at least something one can deal with.
7 years ago #9696851
12
1
I think Europe is far more racist than the United States. They've got F1, and Moto GP, and Rally, and The Isle of Man TT, and you name it.
What do we have in the United States? Nascar. Bloody roundy-round oval track hillbilly redneck Nascar.
What do we have in the United States? Nascar. Bloody roundy-round oval track hillbilly redneck Nascar.
show replies
7 years ago #9696933
0
0
@DerJulian I'm glad someone thought it was funny! I get lonely laughing at my own jokes.
7 years ago #9696868
1
1
@Tarmaque Don't you know that calling someone a "hillbilly" is racist hate speech?
show replies
7 years ago #9696954
1
0
@Tarmaque Umm... Actually no I won't start arquing with you. But just one think I will say. KKK.
show replies
7 years ago #9697183
0
0
@Mixu I realize that puns may not translate well to those who are not native English speakers.
show replies
7 years ago #9697424
0
0
@Tarmaque If that was a joke or pun atleast tell me the thing in it.
show replies
7 years ago #9698020
2
0
@Mixu
Race
Definition A: a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
Definition B: a contest of speed, as in running, riding, driving, or sailing.
Racist
Definition A: a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others. (Being oriented around human races)
Definition B*: Being oriented around racing (with cars for example)
* Not a real definition of racist, but linguistically it makes sense since the word "Race" is part of racist.
Race
Definition A: a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
Definition B: a contest of speed, as in running, riding, driving, or sailing.
Racist
Definition A: a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others. (Being oriented around human races)
Definition B*: Being oriented around racing (with cars for example)
* Not a real definition of racist, but linguistically it makes sense since the word "Race" is part of racist.
show replies
7 years ago #9698151
1
0
@RedMattis It took me a while after reading this explanation to get the pun, but that was surprisingly funny! XD
show replies
7 years ago #9764232
0
0
@Tarmaque So much racing! Also ELMS, all kinds of other endurance series, GP2 (I think that's its name this year), Formula E... I would like to see European Le Mons tho.
7 years ago #9696610
0
0
@PeriodicallyStressed hahaha.. I mean not just white rasist to white.. We're Asian rasist to Asian too.. Even every ethnicities in my country.. A lot of rasist peoples in this world.. So just be like panda.. All in one..
7 years ago #9698416
7
0
"It's OK to be white"
Seeing all the outrage from other white people just by a statement like this, i would say yes to americas question.
Seeing all the outrage from other white people just by a statement like this, i would say yes to americas question.
show replies
7 years ago #9698431
1
0
@Seithoris
I think that statement is retarded too, but because race, like place of birth, sex or parents, are nobody's choice. It simply cannot be ok or not ok, it's just how it is. If somebody thinks being black, white, brown or green has any influence on that person's personality or rights, that person needs a good slapping.
I think that statement is retarded too, but because race, like place of birth, sex or parents, are nobody's choice. It simply cannot be ok or not ok, it's just how it is. If somebody thinks being black, white, brown or green has any influence on that person's personality or rights, that person needs a good slapping.
show replies
7 years ago #9698494
0
0
@Narf
I completely agree
Funny how those people (the actual racists) who thinks being, black, white, etc has any influence on that persons personality and rights are the same people claiming to be fighting for these peoples rights.
I completely agree
Funny how those people (the actual racists) who thinks being, black, white, etc has any influence on that persons personality and rights are the same people claiming to be fighting for these peoples rights.
7 years ago #9698687
2
0
@Seithoris The problem with that statement is it was started as a dogwhistle. Of course it's "okay to be white", but the /pol/ fuckers that started using it recently were doing so to push their own shitty agenda.
show replies
7 years ago #9698713
3
0
@Schiffy Actually.... it was a deliberate social experiment. AND it was the third of three sets of posters in the same location. The first two had said "Its ok to be black" and "It's ok to be brown" respectively. Only the "Its ok to be white" posters were ripped up.
show replies
7 years ago #9721860
1
0
@Kin
Actually I can find no credible proof of your claim on any reputable source online - but please provide such a source if you want to stand by your claim. Otherwise that claim of yours seem to be patently false.
This is what Wikipedia has to say about it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_OK_to_be_white
And Know Your Meme:
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/its-okay-to-be-white
Of course 4chan is a well known cesspool where racists, mymisogynists, neo-Nazi's and the likes congregate online and far from being a "harmless message" like the racists promoting it claim it to be, this message is a racist dog whistle when displayed in this way.
Because while the general statement that it's OK to be anything is obviously OK, the singular statement that it's OK to be white plays into the racist stereotype promoted in the entire western world for centuries.
It's like putting up signs saying "It's OK to be rich" or "It's OK to be slim" - no one need to be reminded that it's OK to be the things that are socially desirable in our culture. Doing so is thus only sending the dog whistle message that it's actually NOT OK to be poor or overweight - or in this case anything but white.
It's thus not sending a positive and empowering message to a group subjected to discrimination - but promoting a sense of victimhood popular in the white supremacy movement these days.
In their views, questioning the racist stereotype (and in their view completely true statement) that people of white skin is simple better then people of darker skin, is threatening.
When in fact it's of course not threatening at all to accept the simple fact that skin color says nothing about a persons abilities or qualities.
Only racist have a problem accepting that simple fact and only they feel threatened by the recent decades development towards a more inclusive and equal society in the west.
That's also why the far-right movement (which is predominantly made up of men) are also so misogynistic.
They likewise feel threatened by the gains in equality being made by women in the last centuries and react in the only way they know how - with hatred and vitriol.
And I say this as a white European male.
Actually I can find no credible proof of your claim on any reputable source online - but please provide such a source if you want to stand by your claim. Otherwise that claim of yours seem to be patently false.
This is what Wikipedia has to say about it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_OK_to_be_white
And Know Your Meme:
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/its-okay-to-be-white
Of course 4chan is a well known cesspool where racists, mymisogynists, neo-Nazi's and the likes congregate online and far from being a "harmless message" like the racists promoting it claim it to be, this message is a racist dog whistle when displayed in this way.
Because while the general statement that it's OK to be anything is obviously OK, the singular statement that it's OK to be white plays into the racist stereotype promoted in the entire western world for centuries.
It's like putting up signs saying "It's OK to be rich" or "It's OK to be slim" - no one need to be reminded that it's OK to be the things that are socially desirable in our culture. Doing so is thus only sending the dog whistle message that it's actually NOT OK to be poor or overweight - or in this case anything but white.
It's thus not sending a positive and empowering message to a group subjected to discrimination - but promoting a sense of victimhood popular in the white supremacy movement these days.
In their views, questioning the racist stereotype (and in their view completely true statement) that people of white skin is simple better then people of darker skin, is threatening.
When in fact it's of course not threatening at all to accept the simple fact that skin color says nothing about a persons abilities or qualities.
Only racist have a problem accepting that simple fact and only they feel threatened by the recent decades development towards a more inclusive and equal society in the west.
That's also why the far-right movement (which is predominantly made up of men) are also so misogynistic.
They likewise feel threatened by the gains in equality being made by women in the last centuries and react in the only way they know how - with hatred and vitriol.
And I say this as a white European male.
7 years ago #9728383
0
0
'@Seithoris'
Almost as if it's a dogwhistle *WINK WINK* coming largely from racists.
Almost as if it's a dogwhistle *WINK WINK* coming largely from racists.
7 years ago #9696826
7
0
I belong to the Sapmi minority of Norway and we are just as white as Norwegians and you can often not tell us apart from them, unless we tell you we are Sapmi. I grew up in this tiny place that is a Sapmi area and has been for generations. A little while back we got signs in Sapmi and Norwegian. We speak mostly Norwegian, but the Sapmi signs gave a feeling of belonging. Then, some people came and shoot at the Sapmi signs and left the Norwegian signs in peace. This happened everywhere in this area and now we only got Norwegian signs. If this isn't racisms then I don't know what is.
show replies
7 years ago #9696955
1
0
@Emmez I feel bad for that. Sami People have gone trought many bad things. That just angers me that someone could do that to my brother nation. Sami people deserve better.
show replies
7 years ago #9697311
0
0
@Juhani Remove the Norwegian signs? Do you think that would’ve helped?
show replies
7 years ago #9698073
0
0
@Juhani But that still wouldn't help, the Sami people would probably get the blame and become more disliked.
And besides, more people would get lost if you removed the Norwegian signs.
And besides, more people would get lost if you removed the Norwegian signs.
show replies
7 years ago #9697425
0
0
@Juhani Oh, great idea. Return evil for evil. No, they should have publicized it a lot. I would guess most Norwegians would strongly disapprove of such racially-motivated vandalism. They would take up a collection to replace the signs, perhaps. They would make it clear that such actions do not reflect Norwegian values.
7 years ago #9697422
0
1
Right-wingers seem rare in Norway, judging from the political parties there and their electoral success. But they do exist. Look at Breivik. And it only takes one disgruntled extremist with a gun to shoot up a bunch of signs. I imagine liquor was probably involved, too.
7 years ago #9696237
7
1
@Kuusi (This comment was a reply to comment #9696231 by the user Kuusi. Since this got into the top commens, sorry that I didn't use the nested system, I don't have it turned on for myself, so I don't always happen to make the reply a nested one. If you got curious and want to know how to turn off nested replies and/or what that exactly means, just @ me and I'll dig up the link since there's no button for it and I will also provide explanation of it.)
To think that only 10 years ago we called a hershey's kisses type of chocolate candy "nigger's kisses", how the times have oddly rapidly changed.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_U1RwRroKUbI/SZJ5xcopz6I/AAAAAAAAAZQ/GN--ZsjL-dc/s1600/mainos3a.jpg
This one is my personal favourite old ad though
http://shohtola.mbnet.fi/Ruotiry/Images/Mainoksia/veikkaus.jpg
(this comment was intended
To think that only 10 years ago we called a hershey's kisses type of chocolate candy "nigger's kisses", how the times have oddly rapidly changed.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_U1RwRroKUbI/SZJ5xcopz6I/AAAAAAAAAZQ/GN--ZsjL-dc/s1600/mainos3a.jpg
This one is my personal favourite old ad though
http://shohtola.mbnet.fi/Ruotiry/Images/Mainoksia/veikkaus.jpg
(this comment was intended
show replies
7 years ago #9696242
1
2
@Finn123
I have even heard that calling a somali a somali is not totally acceptable anymore.
Strange times.
I have even heard that calling a somali a somali is not totally acceptable anymore.
Strange times.
7 years ago #9696413
1
2
I should explain to everyone not reading Finnish or Swedish that what Finn123 writes is wrong.
The word "Neekeri" in Finnish and "Neger" in Swedish can't be translated into the racial slur "N-word" - it's translated as "Negro".
Which was considered the scientifically correct name for people of African decent in Scandinavia at the time these brands where first named in the 1920's and 30's.
The "N-word" has only ever been known as a racial slur originating in the US.
It has never been considered a proper name for people of African decent here. Only racists has ever used that term.
The word "Neekeri" in Finnish and "Neger" in Swedish can't be translated into the racial slur "N-word" - it's translated as "Negro".
Which was considered the scientifically correct name for people of African decent in Scandinavia at the time these brands where first named in the 1920's and 30's.
The "N-word" has only ever been known as a racial slur originating in the US.
It has never been considered a proper name for people of African decent here. Only racists has ever used that term.
show replies
7 years ago #9696463
0
1
@Nisse_Hult
Does "negro's kisses" sound better to you then? "Negro" or "nigger", point is the word "neekeri" was on candy boxes ten years ago but now it's suddenly racist. Times have changed (quickly) was the whole point of my post.
Besides, I can guarantee you that both now and ten years ago the word "neekeri" translated precisely to "nigger". Also, "nigger" was originally a translation from spanish "negro" as well, and according to wikipedia:
"In its original English language usage, nigger (then spelled niger) was generally a neutral word for a dark-skinned individual."
"Nineteenth-century literature features usages of "nigger" without racist connotation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger
Not sure why you even considered your point was important anyway, since it was not only irrelevant, but also at least partly incorrect. Nice try at trying to "correct" me without tagging me though.
Does "negro's kisses" sound better to you then? "Negro" or "nigger", point is the word "neekeri" was on candy boxes ten years ago but now it's suddenly racist. Times have changed (quickly) was the whole point of my post.
Besides, I can guarantee you that both now and ten years ago the word "neekeri" translated precisely to "nigger". Also, "nigger" was originally a translation from spanish "negro" as well, and according to wikipedia:
"In its original English language usage, nigger (then spelled niger) was generally a neutral word for a dark-skinned individual."
"Nineteenth-century literature features usages of "nigger" without racist connotation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger
Not sure why you even considered your point was important anyway, since it was not only irrelevant, but also at least partly incorrect. Nice try at trying to "correct" me without tagging me though.
show replies
7 years ago #9696576
1
1
@Finn123
It's the correct translation, which was the point I was making. But yes, it also sounds slightly better.
Now I know you don't know or care about any of this, as you delight in spewing racist remarks around you on this site, but the history of the word is important.
"Negro" was not only considered the scientifically correct term in Scandinavia back then - it was also a term used by African Americans themselves as late as during the civil rights era of the 1960's.
This was of course because the N-word was only used by racists at that time - and had so been for hundreds of years.
If you bothered to read the actual sources the Wikipedia-link bases it text on, you'd know that:
The second line in the Wikipedia-link is:
"The word originated as a neutral term referring to people with black skin"
Which is in fact completely wrong, as the actual source for that statement in part reads:
"From the earliest usage it was "the term that carries with it all the obloquy and contempt and rejection which whites have inflicted on blacks" [cited in Gowers, 1965, probably Harold R. Isaacs]. But as black inferiority was at one time a near universal assumption in English-speaking lands, the word in some cases could be used without deliberate insult."
https://www.etymonline.com/word/nigger
In other words - hundreds of years ago the N-word could "in some cases" be used without DELIBERATELY seeking to insult - but it was still always insulting. So no - it's never ever been a "neutral term".
And this is of course because the N-word is a word that's ONLY EVER referred to people of African decent and it's ALWAYS been a derogatory term.
As shown the text of the Wikipedia article is misleading (which is disappointing but not wholly surprising - you often find people trying to defend the N-word by misstating it's history), and you make the same mistake in trying to conflate the N-word with the Spanish word for the color black - "Negro".
But no - the N-word has never ever been a "translation" like you call it from Spanish - a translations would obviously have been the word "Black".
Calling someone with darker skin - especially someone who might actually have such dark skin tone that he's virtually black, "Black", isn't an insult - it's a description.
Just like calling paler people "White" (even if we're not literally white).
So the Spanish term "Negro" - which just means black - has never been as derogatory, and that term or simply "Black" has therefore been the preferred term used by decent people.
While the N-word has always been a term used by people who deliberately want to insult - I.E racists.
Regarding your claim that the Finnish word "Neekeri" translates "precisely" to the N-word I very much think that's bullshit.
But it's quite interesting bullshit as it seems to say a lot about you.
Because Google translates Neekeri "precisely" to Negro - as does other online translations I found.
And I know the Swedish word "Neger" on the same box in the same picture definitely doesn't mean the N-word, but "Negro".
But I did manage to find ONE online translation site which gave more options. It's first recommendation was still "Negro" - but then, with the description "offensive: relating to the black ethnicity" it gave the N-word.
Meaning that it seems possible that the word "Neekari" - while not usually - might be interpreted as the N-word by some people as well - but not like you claim that it's the only and precise translation.
But it says a lot about you that you apparantly really, really, really want to interpret the word as derogatory and offensive as possible - even if that's not how most Finnish speakers interpret it.
https://glosbe.com/fi/en/neekeri
So no, my comment was not irrelevant and it wasn't incorrect.
And I didn't tag you because I wasn't directing my post to you, as my text clearly states.
I was only thinking of all the people here who can't read either Finnish or Swedish and wanted to spare them from being misinformed by you.
If you'd been smart you would just have ignored it, and spared yourself this embarrassment.
It's the correct translation, which was the point I was making. But yes, it also sounds slightly better.
Now I know you don't know or care about any of this, as you delight in spewing racist remarks around you on this site, but the history of the word is important.
"Negro" was not only considered the scientifically correct term in Scandinavia back then - it was also a term used by African Americans themselves as late as during the civil rights era of the 1960's.
This was of course because the N-word was only used by racists at that time - and had so been for hundreds of years.
If you bothered to read the actual sources the Wikipedia-link bases it text on, you'd know that:
The second line in the Wikipedia-link is:
"The word originated as a neutral term referring to people with black skin"
Which is in fact completely wrong, as the actual source for that statement in part reads:
"From the earliest usage it was "the term that carries with it all the obloquy and contempt and rejection which whites have inflicted on blacks" [cited in Gowers, 1965, probably Harold R. Isaacs]. But as black inferiority was at one time a near universal assumption in English-speaking lands, the word in some cases could be used without deliberate insult."
https://www.etymonline.com/word/nigger
In other words - hundreds of years ago the N-word could "in some cases" be used without DELIBERATELY seeking to insult - but it was still always insulting. So no - it's never ever been a "neutral term".
And this is of course because the N-word is a word that's ONLY EVER referred to people of African decent and it's ALWAYS been a derogatory term.
As shown the text of the Wikipedia article is misleading (which is disappointing but not wholly surprising - you often find people trying to defend the N-word by misstating it's history), and you make the same mistake in trying to conflate the N-word with the Spanish word for the color black - "Negro".
But no - the N-word has never ever been a "translation" like you call it from Spanish - a translations would obviously have been the word "Black".
Calling someone with darker skin - especially someone who might actually have such dark skin tone that he's virtually black, "Black", isn't an insult - it's a description.
Just like calling paler people "White" (even if we're not literally white).
So the Spanish term "Negro" - which just means black - has never been as derogatory, and that term or simply "Black" has therefore been the preferred term used by decent people.
While the N-word has always been a term used by people who deliberately want to insult - I.E racists.
Regarding your claim that the Finnish word "Neekeri" translates "precisely" to the N-word I very much think that's bullshit.
But it's quite interesting bullshit as it seems to say a lot about you.
Because Google translates Neekeri "precisely" to Negro - as does other online translations I found.
And I know the Swedish word "Neger" on the same box in the same picture definitely doesn't mean the N-word, but "Negro".
But I did manage to find ONE online translation site which gave more options. It's first recommendation was still "Negro" - but then, with the description "offensive: relating to the black ethnicity" it gave the N-word.
Meaning that it seems possible that the word "Neekari" - while not usually - might be interpreted as the N-word by some people as well - but not like you claim that it's the only and precise translation.
But it says a lot about you that you apparantly really, really, really want to interpret the word as derogatory and offensive as possible - even if that's not how most Finnish speakers interpret it.
https://glosbe.com/fi/en/neekeri
So no, my comment was not irrelevant and it wasn't incorrect.
And I didn't tag you because I wasn't directing my post to you, as my text clearly states.
I was only thinking of all the people here who can't read either Finnish or Swedish and wanted to spare them from being misinformed by you.
If you'd been smart you would just have ignored it, and spared yourself this embarrassment.
show replies
7 years ago #9696587
1
0
@Nisse_Hult
"In other words - hundreds of years ago the N-word could "in some cases" be used without DELIBERATELY seeking to insult - but it was still always insulting. So no - it's never ever been a "neutral term"."
If it's used without intended insult, the word shouldn't be insulting. No matter what mental gymnastic you or any other idiot tries to pull on it. Is it insulting to call a dog a dog just because we all think they're less intelligent than us? If they called black people "blacks" 300 years ago, would "black" be a historically racist term in the same way? Hah.
What kind of an idiot thinks he can use google translator and "other online translations" to debunk a native speaker's translation and explanation of the word 'neekeri' and it's meaning in Finnish? 'Neekeri' indeed did not use to have a negative connotation to it, say 80 years ago. But then again, the word "nigger" was also not consistently considered an insult a long time ago, as previously proven. Do you even realize that while in Spanish 'negro' means 'black', in English it's becoming nearly as offensive as the word nigger in the U.S.? In the end, with the modern use of the languages, 'neekeri' equals 'nigger' and I can guarantee you that it is considered an extremely offensive word in Finnish nowadays, as much as I dislike that.
I'd tell you to stop embarrassing yourself, but you're in luck because nobody bothers to read your drawn out messages where you take something that could be said in a couple of sentences, and stretch it into a poorly written 700 word text full asinine statements and screeching about racism, forming a body that is an impressing blend of arrogant, ignorant, unintelligent and just plain toxic.
"In other words - hundreds of years ago the N-word could "in some cases" be used without DELIBERATELY seeking to insult - but it was still always insulting. So no - it's never ever been a "neutral term"."
If it's used without intended insult, the word shouldn't be insulting. No matter what mental gymnastic you or any other idiot tries to pull on it. Is it insulting to call a dog a dog just because we all think they're less intelligent than us? If they called black people "blacks" 300 years ago, would "black" be a historically racist term in the same way? Hah.
What kind of an idiot thinks he can use google translator and "other online translations" to debunk a native speaker's translation and explanation of the word 'neekeri' and it's meaning in Finnish? 'Neekeri' indeed did not use to have a negative connotation to it, say 80 years ago. But then again, the word "nigger" was also not consistently considered an insult a long time ago, as previously proven. Do you even realize that while in Spanish 'negro' means 'black', in English it's becoming nearly as offensive as the word nigger in the U.S.? In the end, with the modern use of the languages, 'neekeri' equals 'nigger' and I can guarantee you that it is considered an extremely offensive word in Finnish nowadays, as much as I dislike that.
I'd tell you to stop embarrassing yourself, but you're in luck because nobody bothers to read your drawn out messages where you take something that could be said in a couple of sentences, and stretch it into a poorly written 700 word text full asinine statements and screeching about racism, forming a body that is an impressing blend of arrogant, ignorant, unintelligent and just plain toxic.
show replies
7 years ago #9696850
0
1
@Finn123
That's not how words work and your opinion on how they should work according to you doesn't matter - because you obviously don't decide that.
Words can carry both positive and negative connotation - and those meanings can shift and be completely different to different people. Just look at how the N-word means one thing when it's used by a racist like you here on this site, compared to when it's used between two African American friends chillin on the sofa, watching a movie together.
In the same way the word "Dog" that you use as an example is a very strong insult in parts of the world where dogs are viewed as especially unclean creatures and the word has thus taken on very negative connotations.
While for most of us in the western world, the word "Dog" has neutral or even positive connotations if we maybe grew up with dogs in the family when we where kids and love dogs.
But the word actually used to be one of the worst insults even to us, hundreds of years ago.
Back in the early 17th century, when Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden was down warring in central Europe, there's historic records of him calling someone a "Hundsvott" - which was considered very insulting at the time.
That term has fallen out of use since, but you can still find it in some dictionary sources as a demeaning word and the first part of the word obviously refers to the Swedish word for "Dog" which is "Hund".
But since then the connotation of the word and creature has changed a lot - in our part of the world, that is.
So yes - if racists had used the word "Black" to label people of African decent since hundreds of years, that would have been the more derogatory term today - no matter that it started out as just being the word for a color.
"What kind of an idiot thinks he can use google translator and "other online translations" to debunk a native speaker's translation and explanation of the word 'neekeri' and it's meaning in Finnish? "
Yes - what kind of idiots would ever compile, print and use a dictionary when everyone of course know all about every word in their own language?
Answer: intelligent people since around 2300 BC, when the first known rudimentary dictionaries where compiled.
Only ignorant persons like you think they know everything and refuse to educate themselves, instead just spouting of their beliefs as if they where facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary
I'll take serious sources over your beliefs any day, thank you very much.
So let's continue looking at actual sources, shall we?
Like this source from the Wikipedia article, that shows that instead of a neutral word, the N-word was DELIBERATELY used by racists in the US - precisely because it was viewed as the most insulting and demeaning term available:
"In A Treatise on the Intellectual Character and Civil and Political Condition of the Colored People of the United States: and the Prejudice Exercised Towards Them (1837), Hosea Easton wrote that nigger "is an opprobrious term, employed to impose contempt upon [blacks] as an inferior race. . . . The term in itself would be perfectly harmless were it used only to distinguish one class of society from another; but it is not used with that intent. . . . [I]t flows from the fountain of purpose to injure."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/nigger.htm
And in the Swedish language version of the Wikipedia entry for the N-word, they use as a source the first printed version of the old Swedish classic encyclopedia "Nordisk familjebok" which states (my translation):
"Nigger, English word, In America used as a contemptuous common noun instead of Negro"
http://runeberg.org/nfak/0556.html
And this was printed in 1887, so the N-word has been known specifically as a derogatory racial slur for very long - while "Negro" or the Swedish "Neger" was considered the proper name.
So no - you're again proven completely wrong. The N-word has been known as a racial slur for a very long time indeed and anyone using it 80 years ago would have given themselves away as a racist - just like you do today, when you chose to use it.
"Negro" or the Swedish "Neger" on the other hand is a completely different thing as I've said all along. And as far as I've been able to find that is also the correct translation of the Finnish word "Nekkeri" - despite what you claim.
That was viewed as the proper term 80 years ago and even 40 years ago, and thus if you find older Scandinavians who use that term that doesn't necessary give them away as racists.
But the N-word has never been anything but a racial slur in Scandinavia. It's never been thought as the proper name for people of African decent in any national school curriculum and anyone choosing to use it have thus always betrayed their racist views.
Nowadays our language has evolved further, so now it's also considered inappropriate to use the old term "Negro" and the Swedish and Finnish versions for it - but as I said you can still find old people not intending any harm by using it, as it was the term they where taught as children.
But that still doesn't make "Negro" as bad as the N-word though - which you also know full well.
And young people like you, still using "Neger" or "Nekkeri" today, only betray racist views as you where never thought that term was the proper name to use - just like no one has ever been thought to use the N-word in Scandinavia.
I know you dislike that change in our languages - as a racist you of course would wish to continue insulting people, as that's what racists live for. But fortunately we've moved on from that and when you spot racist crap like that today you're going to get pushback. That's a good thing.
So just a tip: Don't waste your time worrying about what anyone else thinks about what I write. I'm not the one spewing racist crap around here.
That's not how words work and your opinion on how they should work according to you doesn't matter - because you obviously don't decide that.
Words can carry both positive and negative connotation - and those meanings can shift and be completely different to different people. Just look at how the N-word means one thing when it's used by a racist like you here on this site, compared to when it's used between two African American friends chillin on the sofa, watching a movie together.
In the same way the word "Dog" that you use as an example is a very strong insult in parts of the world where dogs are viewed as especially unclean creatures and the word has thus taken on very negative connotations.
While for most of us in the western world, the word "Dog" has neutral or even positive connotations if we maybe grew up with dogs in the family when we where kids and love dogs.
But the word actually used to be one of the worst insults even to us, hundreds of years ago.
Back in the early 17th century, when Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden was down warring in central Europe, there's historic records of him calling someone a "Hundsvott" - which was considered very insulting at the time.
That term has fallen out of use since, but you can still find it in some dictionary sources as a demeaning word and the first part of the word obviously refers to the Swedish word for "Dog" which is "Hund".
But since then the connotation of the word and creature has changed a lot - in our part of the world, that is.
So yes - if racists had used the word "Black" to label people of African decent since hundreds of years, that would have been the more derogatory term today - no matter that it started out as just being the word for a color.
"What kind of an idiot thinks he can use google translator and "other online translations" to debunk a native speaker's translation and explanation of the word 'neekeri' and it's meaning in Finnish? "
Yes - what kind of idiots would ever compile, print and use a dictionary when everyone of course know all about every word in their own language?
Answer: intelligent people since around 2300 BC, when the first known rudimentary dictionaries where compiled.
Only ignorant persons like you think they know everything and refuse to educate themselves, instead just spouting of their beliefs as if they where facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary
I'll take serious sources over your beliefs any day, thank you very much.
So let's continue looking at actual sources, shall we?
Like this source from the Wikipedia article, that shows that instead of a neutral word, the N-word was DELIBERATELY used by racists in the US - precisely because it was viewed as the most insulting and demeaning term available:
"In A Treatise on the Intellectual Character and Civil and Political Condition of the Colored People of the United States: and the Prejudice Exercised Towards Them (1837), Hosea Easton wrote that nigger "is an opprobrious term, employed to impose contempt upon [blacks] as an inferior race. . . . The term in itself would be perfectly harmless were it used only to distinguish one class of society from another; but it is not used with that intent. . . . [I]t flows from the fountain of purpose to injure."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/nigger.htm
And in the Swedish language version of the Wikipedia entry for the N-word, they use as a source the first printed version of the old Swedish classic encyclopedia "Nordisk familjebok" which states (my translation):
"Nigger, English word, In America used as a contemptuous common noun instead of Negro"
http://runeberg.org/nfak/0556.html
And this was printed in 1887, so the N-word has been known specifically as a derogatory racial slur for very long - while "Negro" or the Swedish "Neger" was considered the proper name.
So no - you're again proven completely wrong. The N-word has been known as a racial slur for a very long time indeed and anyone using it 80 years ago would have given themselves away as a racist - just like you do today, when you chose to use it.
"Negro" or the Swedish "Neger" on the other hand is a completely different thing as I've said all along. And as far as I've been able to find that is also the correct translation of the Finnish word "Nekkeri" - despite what you claim.
That was viewed as the proper term 80 years ago and even 40 years ago, and thus if you find older Scandinavians who use that term that doesn't necessary give them away as racists.
But the N-word has never been anything but a racial slur in Scandinavia. It's never been thought as the proper name for people of African decent in any national school curriculum and anyone choosing to use it have thus always betrayed their racist views.
Nowadays our language has evolved further, so now it's also considered inappropriate to use the old term "Negro" and the Swedish and Finnish versions for it - but as I said you can still find old people not intending any harm by using it, as it was the term they where taught as children.
But that still doesn't make "Negro" as bad as the N-word though - which you also know full well.
And young people like you, still using "Neger" or "Nekkeri" today, only betray racist views as you where never thought that term was the proper name to use - just like no one has ever been thought to use the N-word in Scandinavia.
I know you dislike that change in our languages - as a racist you of course would wish to continue insulting people, as that's what racists live for. But fortunately we've moved on from that and when you spot racist crap like that today you're going to get pushback. That's a good thing.
So just a tip: Don't waste your time worrying about what anyone else thinks about what I write. I'm not the one spewing racist crap around here.
show replies
7 years ago #9697314
0
0
@Nogard
No, but the value society puts on the object the word names gives the word a connotation - a certain value.
Or put differently - the name for things society value less are also seen as a derogatory term, while the name for things society value more is seen as a positive term.
Compare for instance calling a football player a "Golden boy" - gold it valued highly, so he's obviously in some way praised by this comment.
Or call him a "Shit player" and you know that's not considered praise - right?
So calling a person "dog" or in any way likening a person to a dog will be a different statement in different societies, based on the value that society places on dogs.
No, but the value society puts on the object the word names gives the word a connotation - a certain value.
Or put differently - the name for things society value less are also seen as a derogatory term, while the name for things society value more is seen as a positive term.
Compare for instance calling a football player a "Golden boy" - gold it valued highly, so he's obviously in some way praised by this comment.
Or call him a "Shit player" and you know that's not considered praise - right?
So calling a person "dog" or in any way likening a person to a dog will be a different statement in different societies, based on the value that society places on dogs.
7 years ago #9697574
0
0
@Nisse_Hult While for most of us in the western world, the word "Dog" has neutral or even positive connotations if we maybe grew up with dogs in the family when we where kids and love dogs.
But the word actually used to be one of the worst insults even to us, hundreds of years ago.
Back in the early 17th century, when Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden was down warring in central Europe, there's historic records of him calling someone a "Hundsvott" - which was considered very insulting at the time.
That term has fallen out of use since, but you can still find it in some dictionary sources as a demeaning word and the first part of the word obviously refers to the Swedish word for "Dog" which is "Hund".
Also in German. And the second part of the word refers to the middle high german fud for "female canine anatomy" (expletive), so the offensiveness might not entirely be due to the "dog" part, but rather the "dog part".
But the word actually used to be one of the worst insults even to us, hundreds of years ago.
Back in the early 17th century, when Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden was down warring in central Europe, there's historic records of him calling someone a "Hundsvott" - which was considered very insulting at the time.
That term has fallen out of use since, but you can still find it in some dictionary sources as a demeaning word and the first part of the word obviously refers to the Swedish word for "Dog" which is "Hund".
Also in German. And the second part of the word refers to the middle high german fud for "female canine anatomy" (expletive), so the offensiveness might not entirely be due to the "dog" part, but rather the "dog part".
show replies
7 years ago #9697629
0
0
@mowny
Aha - thanks for the info, I had no idea about that German word.
Makes perfect sense as Gustavus Adolphus was somewhere in present day Germnay or Poland at the time and the Swedish language has been heavily influenced by the German throughout history.
Unfortunetly my high school German is far too bad to be able to read the link you provided, but I can tell you that I have found the word in Swedish sources and the connection to "female canine anatomy" is definetly not mentioned there.
But it sounds very likely that your theory is correct.
But even so the choice to use a canines female anatomy still says something about that societies view of dogs. Becuase if the word is meant as an insult you of course chose the animal with the lowest social standing you can think of.
And that makes perfect sense as dogs where rather useless for most people in those days.
They don't produce milk, wool or meat and most people couldn't afford to waste food on feeding them as pets - which in our days have improved their social standing in the western world.
Aha - thanks for the info, I had no idea about that German word.
Makes perfect sense as Gustavus Adolphus was somewhere in present day Germnay or Poland at the time and the Swedish language has been heavily influenced by the German throughout history.
Unfortunetly my high school German is far too bad to be able to read the link you provided, but I can tell you that I have found the word in Swedish sources and the connection to "female canine anatomy" is definetly not mentioned there.
But it sounds very likely that your theory is correct.
But even so the choice to use a canines female anatomy still says something about that societies view of dogs. Becuase if the word is meant as an insult you of course chose the animal with the lowest social standing you can think of.
And that makes perfect sense as dogs where rather useless for most people in those days.
They don't produce milk, wool or meat and most people couldn't afford to waste food on feeding them as pets - which in our days have improved their social standing in the western world.
7 years ago #9696628
0
0
@Nisse_Hult
Nisse is right.
There's an exact analogy of the n-word in finnish but it was really not used even in the old days (mainly in transaltions from american novels).
For some local political reasons "neekeri" has been labeled here as the n-word.
Maybe because the other word was really unknown or perhaps someone wanted to be extrmely PC.
And at the same time US cencus forms still had the word "negro" as an option (and now when it's dropped some old afro-americans complain because they consider it more proper for them)
Nisse is right.
There's an exact analogy of the n-word in finnish but it was really not used even in the old days (mainly in transaltions from american novels).
For some local political reasons "neekeri" has been labeled here as the n-word.
Maybe because the other word was really unknown or perhaps someone wanted to be extrmely PC.
And at the same time US cencus forms still had the word "negro" as an option (and now when it's dropped some old afro-americans complain because they consider it more proper for them)
show replies
7 years ago #9696867
0
1
@Kuusi
Thanks for the info. :-)
But it is really true that "Nekkeri" "has been labeled here as the N-word" like you write?
Or is it that the word "Nekkeri" is now ALSO considered offensive and inappropriate in the Finnish language, besides that other word you mention - because that sounds like the more likely explanation?
That's how it works in the Swedish language and I also believe that's true for all other Scandinavian languages?
So like this:
There was once a name considered the proper term for people of African decent that was the language-specific version of the English "Negro".
In Swedish that was "Neger", and as far as I've found in Finnish-Swedish and Finnish-English translations online that Finnish word for "Negro" seems to be "Nekkeri".
And then, separate from that proper name, there was also the N-word - which was never ever considered a proper name, but has only ever been used as a racial slur.
In Swedish we've never had a Swedish version of that slur - racists just used the English N-word.
But maybe there was a Finnish language specific translation of the N-word then, like you say?
Either way, today the language specific versions of the English "Negro" (I.E. "Nekkeri") is now also considered offensive and inappropriate in Finland - but that still doesn't mean that the word is actually the same as or "has been labeled here as the N-word" like you say? Instead Nekkeri has now joined the Finnish version of the N-word in the groups of word we shouldn't use as they're offensive.
Isn't that the actual case in Finland, just as in Sweden?
I would believe so.
Well, African Americans should of course get to call themselves whatever they like. If they prefer "Negro" that's their business.
But that's them - the rest of us should respect whatever the larger community of people of African decent prefer.
No need to be a dick by calling people something they find offensive, when it's simply a question of using another word.
Thanks for the info. :-)
But it is really true that "Nekkeri" "has been labeled here as the N-word" like you write?
Or is it that the word "Nekkeri" is now ALSO considered offensive and inappropriate in the Finnish language, besides that other word you mention - because that sounds like the more likely explanation?
That's how it works in the Swedish language and I also believe that's true for all other Scandinavian languages?
So like this:
There was once a name considered the proper term for people of African decent that was the language-specific version of the English "Negro".
In Swedish that was "Neger", and as far as I've found in Finnish-Swedish and Finnish-English translations online that Finnish word for "Negro" seems to be "Nekkeri".
And then, separate from that proper name, there was also the N-word - which was never ever considered a proper name, but has only ever been used as a racial slur.
In Swedish we've never had a Swedish version of that slur - racists just used the English N-word.
But maybe there was a Finnish language specific translation of the N-word then, like you say?
Either way, today the language specific versions of the English "Negro" (I.E. "Nekkeri") is now also considered offensive and inappropriate in Finland - but that still doesn't mean that the word is actually the same as or "has been labeled here as the N-word" like you say? Instead Nekkeri has now joined the Finnish version of the N-word in the groups of word we shouldn't use as they're offensive.
Isn't that the actual case in Finland, just as in Sweden?
I would believe so.
Well, African Americans should of course get to call themselves whatever they like. If they prefer "Negro" that's their business.
But that's them - the rest of us should respect whatever the larger community of people of African decent prefer.
No need to be a dick by calling people something they find offensive, when it's simply a question of using another word.
show replies
7 years ago #9696936
0
0
@Nisse_Hult
The actual n-word is here at 1:01
(he's singing about how he constantly uses drugs)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNwsROzM_Q8
And it's really so that the media started to complain about the usage of "neekeri" and the actual n-word was not mentioned as it was so rare and unknown.
But anyway both of them are now no no.
One more thing: in America even "black" is now starting to be frowned upon and I guess Afro-american will follow some day. To me it seems that any word will start to be negative and at some point it needs to be replaced. Here somali is starting to be negative, but currently there's no alternative.
The actual n-word is here at 1:01
(he's singing about how he constantly uses drugs)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNwsROzM_Q8
And it's really so that the media started to complain about the usage of "neekeri" and the actual n-word was not mentioned as it was so rare and unknown.
But anyway both of them are now no no.
One more thing: in America even "black" is now starting to be frowned upon and I guess Afro-american will follow some day. To me it seems that any word will start to be negative and at some point it needs to be replaced. Here somali is starting to be negative, but currently there's no alternative.
7 years ago #9696583
0
0
@Finn123
I can't for the life of me figure out what some formerly dubiously-named candy has to do with the topic of this comic which has nothing to do with black people or chocolate, since it is about white people (possibly) being racist to other white people. It's almost like some folks just can't help but gleefully drag out the word "nigger" at every available moment and spew it all over everything.
I can't for the life of me figure out what some formerly dubiously-named candy has to do with the topic of this comic which has nothing to do with black people or chocolate, since it is about white people (possibly) being racist to other white people. It's almost like some folks just can't help but gleefully drag out the word "nigger" at every available moment and spew it all over everything.
show replies
7 years ago #9696590
0
0
@skilpadden
It was a relevant reply to the comment to which I replied -.-
Not all comments on these comics are direct replies to the comic itself.
Also, my comment was a reply to comment #9696231 by the user Kuusi. Sorry that I didn't use the nested system, I don't have it turned on for myself, so I don't always happen to make the reply a nested one. And yes, you can make the comments non-nesting.
It was a relevant reply to the comment to which I replied -.-
Not all comments on these comics are direct replies to the comic itself.
Also, my comment was a reply to comment #9696231 by the user Kuusi. Sorry that I didn't use the nested system, I don't have it turned on for myself, so I don't always happen to make the reply a nested one. And yes, you can make the comments non-nesting.
7 years ago #9696668
1
3
@skilpadden
Especially telling as Finn123's translation isn't even accurate.
Only a racist like him would choose to mistranslate that Finnish and Swedish word into the N-word when the correct translation is "Negro".
Which is in itself a word that's not used today either - but it's still a lot better then the N-word, which has only ever been used by racists in this part of the world.
Especially telling as Finn123's translation isn't even accurate.
Only a racist like him would choose to mistranslate that Finnish and Swedish word into the N-word when the correct translation is "Negro".
Which is in itself a word that's not used today either - but it's still a lot better then the N-word, which has only ever been used by racists in this part of the world.
7 years ago #9696952
0
0
@skilpadden
Doesn't it derive from the country names of Nigeria and Niger?
Nigerian can't be offensive, can it?
Doesn't it derive from the country names of Nigeria and Niger?
Nigerian can't be offensive, can it?
Add comment: Please Sign in or create an accout to comment.
17
Hate everyone.