White Privilege

[PocketZeven]

Try answering this and you might see the problem with your building:

As stated before I cant answer that question in detail as I am not a student of anthropology. If you want the answer I highly recommend contacting a local University with an anthropology division.

But what i notice is that statements of mine or often "spinned" to suggest an intention that is not my own. And for the Xth time, I am not an english native speaker. I make mistakes. I meant to say that Europe is not only a region but also a place with different societies with history, culture, religion etc. and inhabitants of various ethnic group. I had no intention to simplify europe as solely as a geographical region. If my post perhaps suggested it. I apologise for that. Saying someone is of european descent is more of a guess, because swedish people and italians all have their own traits, but share a similair light skin (compared to asian, latino, indian, african etc.)

 

[Famine]

As stated before I cant answer that question in detail as I am not a student of anthropology. If you want the answer I highly recommend contacting a local University with an anthropology division.

Why? Is the local university with an anthroplogy division responsible for your posts on here? You make the claims, you support them.

Oh, also, I'm a geneticist.

 

[PocketZeven]

Why? Is the local university with an anthroplogy division responsible for your posts on here? You make the claims, you support them.

Oh, also, I'm a geneticist.

What claims exactly? Am I wrong in agreeing that there are no different human races (biological term) ?

 

[Famine]

What claims exactly?

The claims you've made that a person is of a given race depending on their skin tone and descent:

A white person is a person with light skin and most likely of an european descent.

The one on the right is light skinned of asian descent and thus is Asian.

The kid is an albino person of african descent.

Generally speaking for example people with mixed heritage are called a person with X skin from irish, chinese etc. descent.

I stated that skincolor and heritage are all part to define someones anthropolic background. So while he is light skinned, it is because he doesnt have pigment. But that doesnt take away his african descent.

@Danoff asked this very pertinent question to the claims of descent:

So the question is, how many generations must have lived in a region for you to be a descendant of that region. Am I of American descent? European? African? All?

This directly questions the claims you've been making - you posted them, using your words, with no hint of quotation from outside sources and no references made - of descent being relevant to race.

Your contention is that descent is relevant to race. @Danoff's question is how far back one's descent must be considered. Your answer is:

 

[the_boy]

All of this won’t matter in about 20 years when everybody living in the US will be a minority (at least I hope so, getting sick of all these participation trophies we give out)

 

[PocketZeven]

The claims you've made that a person is of a given race depending on their skin tone and descent:





@Danoff asked this very pertinent question to the claims of descent:

This directly questions the claims you've been making - you posted them, using your words, with no hint of quotation from outside sources and no references made - of descent being relevant to race.

Your contention is that descent is relevant to race. @Danoff's question is how far back one's descent must be considered. Your answer is:

I already stated the use of race is inaccurate. So your own theory is that there are different races of human beings?

The premise that I "claim a race is defined by skintone and descent" already is incorrect. I dont claim that. I also did not claimed to be an anthropologist. If I ever posted something about descent being relevant to race I am absolutely wrong and an idiot. I probably got confused with my translations and used the wrong words. Like i mixed up anthropologic and ethnic a few times.

Dont take my words literal and at least ask for my intention if you are confused and correct me if i used the wrong words. I get it can be frustrating for a native speaker, but at least I am trying to improve.

The short answer for your question is: Do your own research.

But how do you describe the three people in the picture?

 

[Famine]

So your own theory is

I didn't make any claims of a theory. This is not about me or my words. It's about you and your words.

But how do you describe the three people in the picture?

Irrelevant. You described them in your terms. This is not about me or my words. It's about you and your words.

The short answer for your question is: Do your own research.

No. This is not how it works. It's your claim. You made it, with your words. You did not place the claim in quotations, attribute it to other people or cite references. It is your claim. No-one else is beholden to do your research for you on your claims. You make them, you support them.

You posted those words, so you answer the questions about them.

You're using descent as your argument. To do that you must know how far back descent is relevant. If descent is relevant how far back does the relevance of descent go? How many generations is far enough back to say someone is of "X" descent, and how many is too far back?

 

[PocketZeven]

I didn't make any claims of a theory. This is not about me or my words. It's about you and your words.

Irrelevant. You described them in your terms. This is not about me or my words. It's about you and your words.

No. This is not how it works. It's your claim. You made it, with your words. You did not place the claim in quotations, attribute it to other people or cite references. It is your claim. No-one else is beholden to do your research for you on your claims. You make them, you support them.

You posted those words, so you answer the questions about them.

You're using descent as your argument. To do that you must know how far back descent is relevant. If descent is relevant how far back does the relevance of descent go? How many generations is far enough back to say someone is of "X" descent, and how many is too far back?

You have to roll back a little. I dont claim "races" are defined by color and descent. I already corrected my view that "races"do not exist. Are you not reading my posts? But by using the word "race"to define ethnic groups yourself or claiming I used the word, you believe that the human race is devided in races?

The question you ask is relative and should be asked to someone more knowledgable. I already told you I dont know the answer. I know part of the answer , but it would be complicated to answer for me in english. You are perhaps hammering on me for my poor use of english. The relevance of descent is only part of the question. My definition of descent was ancestry, society, culture, language, homeland, history, religion, cuisine, physical appearance etc.So just living in a region for X amount of time is not sufficient to define someones "descent"Or should I have used "ancestry" or "ethnicity"?

If i used the wrong word I apologise again. In my language "afkomst" has a very broad meaning. and askin someone how far back "afkomst" is relevant to define someones "afkomst" is a whole study in itself (Anthropology) Did I use "descent" incorrectly?

https://www.linguee.com/english-dutch/translation/descent.html

 

[Famine]

You have to roll back a little.

Oh, you mean more fundamental? Imagine that.

I already corrected my view that "races"do not exist. Are you not reading my posts? But by using the word "race"to define ethnic groups yourself or claiming I used the word, you believe that the human race is devided in races?

I don't believe anything, and I have made no claims. I'm certainly not going to answer your questions on the topic while you persistently wriggle and twist out of answering questions - simple questions - made of your stance.

The question you ask is relative and should be asked to someone more knowledgable.

Someone more knowledgeable didn't make the claims. You did. Repeatedly. I quoted them for you.

I already told you I dont know the answer.

You absolutely have not addressed this question in any way:

So the question is, how many generations must have lived in a region for you to be a descendant of that region. Am I of American descent? European? African? All?

Apart from to tell me I need to do my own research on claims you made!

You are perhaps hammering on me for my poor use of english.

No-one has brought up your use of language at any point, except you.

My definition of descent was ancestry, society, culture, language, homeland, history, religion, cuisine, physical appearance etc.So just living in a region for X amount of time is not sufficient to define someones "descent"Or should I have used "ancestry" or "ethnicity"?

You're still avoiding the question. Here are your posts again:

A white person is a person with light skin and most likely of an european descent.

The one on the right is light skinned of asian descent and thus is Asian.

The kid is an albino person of african descent.

Generally speaking for example people with mixed heritage are called a person with X skin from irish, chinese etc. descent.

I stated that skincolor and heritage are all part to define someones anthropolic background. So while he is light skinned, it is because he doesnt have pigment. But that doesnt take away his african descent.

Here is the question again.

So the question is, how many generations must have lived in a region for you to be a descendant of that region. Am I of American descent? European? African? All?

You - you, not someone at a local university's anthropology department, not someone more knowledgeable and certainly not me - made those posts. You think that. The question @Danoff asks is addressed at those posts.

If you think Person X is black because they have dark skin and an African descent (or ancestry, or "ethnicity", or heritage, or background, or any other term you want to put in there), you must have considered how far back the African descent needs to go in order to be relevant enough to be considered descent. If you haven't, you've literally been spewing unfounded information as if it's factual - but now's your chance to consider it.

So, how far back is it? One generation? Two? Five? Ten? Two hundred? How far back is far enough?

 

[PocketZeven]

The claims you've made that a person is of a given race depending on their skin tone and descent:

As i was trying to tell you I did not claim there are "races". You are ignoring my point? How can i explain a claim if i didnt make the claim? You apparantly classify ethnic groups into "races". That is what you used in your post.

Are you pretending or seriously asking? If someones makes a claim that the sky is blue. Does he need to explain why it is blue and for how long? Is it neccesary for this person to know why the sky is blue to make that claim? If I claim a horse is faster then a human, should I know the physics and genetics to make that claim?

To correct myself for your nitpicking the use of descent:

The white person is a person likely to be of ancestry in europe, part of a aegean, balkan, anglo-saxian, celtic, germanic , iberian etc. society in europe most likely settled there by the bronze age.

And to answer the question you repeatedly are asking and already answered: I dont know.

 

[Famine]

You apparantly classify ethnic groups into "races". That is what you used in your post.

Nope. It's what I used in my post about your claims.

Are you pretending or seriously asking? If someones makes a claim that the sky is blue. Does he need to explain why it is blue and for how long? Is it neccesary for this person to know why the sky is blue to make that claim?

It's necessary to know why the sky is blue to understand the claim. Then they can move on to other knowledge that uses that as a basis. Fundamentals, see? Knowledge is based on knowledge, with more advanced knowledge based on more fundamental knowledge.

If someone says that the sky is blue because it looks blue, they don't understand it why it is blue. You could ask them what colour it is at night, and that might get them to understand the dangers of perception.

If I claim a horse is faster then a human, should I know the physics and genetics to make that claim?

Is a horse faster than a human? Over short distances, certainly - horses can clip along at 40mph and humans are lucky to get to 25mph - but humans are pursuit predators and over very long distances can outpace most things other than dogs (who, it seems evolved in conjunction with us; dogs may well be man's best friend in a very literal sense). What about if it's a very fast human and a very slow horse - I'd love to see Usain Bolt against a Falabella?

Dangers of perception, see?

The white person is a person likely to be of ancestry in europe, part of a aegean, balkan, anglo-saxian, celtic, germanic , iberian etc. society in europe most likely settled there by the bronze age.

And to answer the question you repeatedly are asking and already answered: I dont know.

Well... now you've given two answers - which is a step up from none.

"I don't know" is fine as an answer - one of the best in fact. It's the (dare I say it) fundamental principle of all knowledge. But it means you've been banging on about skin colour and descent/ancestry/heritage/lineage without any clear idea of what descent/ancestry/heritage/lineage is. It means that when you say this:

A white person is a person with light skin and most likely of an european descent.

The one on the right is light skinned of asian descent and thus is Asian.

The kid is an albino person of african descent.

Generally speaking for example people with mixed heritage are called a person with X skin from irish, chinese etc. descent.

I stated that skincolor and heritage are all part to define someones anthropolic background. So while he is light skinned, it is because he doesnt have pigment. But that doesnt take away his african descent.

There is literally no upper or lower bound. That absolutely destroys that as a relevant concept. It means that someone born in the USA to two non-US parents is of American descent/ancestry/heritage/lineage. It also means that they are of African descent/ancestry/heritage/lineage, because everyone is (probably). This metric becomes useless, and without that you're talking about people only in terms of skin colour to categorise them.

This is your chance then to consider exactly what you mean when you say (and you certainly did say) descent/ancestry/heritage/lineage. Exactly how recent is relevant, and exactly how far back would you go before it ceases to be relevant? Hominids in Africa? The exploration era? The slave trade? When you've picked a time, why that one?

But... you gave another answer:

The white person is a person likely to be of ancestry in europe, part of a aegean, balkan, anglo-saxian, celtic, germanic , iberian etc. society in europe most likely settled there by the bronze age.

Why the Bronze Age?

I mean, certainly at that point in time white Europeans were in Northern Europe, olive-skinned Europeans were in Southern Europe, arabic people were in the middle east, Asians were in Asia and black people were in Africa. Oh, and native Americans were in North America and aborigines were in Australia. But 5,000 years is quite a time, and if you're going to suggest "society, culture, language, homeland, history, religion, cuisine" is part of ancestry, the Bronze Age isn't a good time to go for - very few of these things had even emerged by the end of the Bronze Age. Most nations and religions are significantly younger than that, and the Bronze Age featured the emergence of writing and language, so there's not much history there either (well, at least in recorded terms). I'm no expert on the diversification of cuisines as I'm British.

Angles and Saxons were both Germanic peoples, just FYI.


By your Bronze Age argument, I'm of Bavarian descent, as I'm English, of Welsh/English parents who were of Welsh/Welsh/Welsh/English parents. Moving back through the ages that leads to the Celts of Wales, who essentially were remnants of the British Celts following European Romanisation of the Celts. The British Celts were simply a remnant of the Iron Age expansion of the Celts across Europe, from their Swiss/Austrian roots - succeeding the earlier Hallstatt Iron Age and Urnfield Late Bronze Age cultures of the region, which succeeded the Tumulus Bronze Age culture, centred on Bavaria - although the Tumulus peoples followed the Unetice culture, largely based in the current Czech Republic/Slovakia region, but with some activity in Bavaria and Poland.

So there you go, I'm apparently Bavarian, not British. No wonder I like beer and leather.

 

[PocketZeven]

Nope. It's what I used in my post about your claims.

It's necessary to know why the sky is blue to understand the claim. Then they can move on to other knowledge that uses that as a basis. Fundamentals, see? Knowledge is based on knowledge, with more advanced knowledge based on more fundamental knowledge.

If someone says that the sky is blue because it looks blue, they don't understand it why it is blue. You could ask them what colour it is at night, and that might get them to understand the dangers of perception.

Is a horse faster than a human? Over short distances, certainly - horses can clip along at 40mph and humans are lucky to get to 25mph - but humans are pursuit predators and over very long distances can outpace most things other than dogs (who, it seems evolved in conjunction with us; dogs may well be man's best friend in a very literal sense). What about if it's a very fast human and a very slow horse - I'd love to see Usain Bolt against a Falabella?

Dangers of perception, see?

Well... now you've given two answers - which is a step up from none.

"I don't know" is fine as an answer - one of the best in fact. It's the (dare I say it) fundamental principle of all knowledge. But it means you've been banging on about skin colour and descent/ancestry/heritage/lineage without any clear idea of what descent/ancestry/heritage/lineage is. It means that when you say this:





There is literally no upper or lower bound. That absolutely destroys that as a relevant concept. It means that someone born in the USA to two non-US parents is of American descent/ancestry/heritage/lineage. It also means that they are of African descent/ancestry/heritage/lineage, because everyone is (probably). This metric becomes useless, and without that you're talking about people only in terms of skin colour to categorise them.

This is your chance then to consider exactly what you mean when you say (and you certainly did say) descent/ancestry/heritage/lineage. Exactly how recent is relevant, and exactly how far back would you go before it ceases to be relevant? Hominids in Africa? The exploration era? The slave trade? When you've picked a time, why that one?

But... you gave another answer:

Why the Bronze Age?

I mean, certainly at that point in time white Europeans were in Northern Europe, olive-skinned Europeans were in Southern Europe, arabic people were in the middle east, Asians were in Asia and black people were in Africa. Oh, and native Americans were in North America and aborigines were in Australia. But 5,000 years is quite a time, and if you're going to suggest "society, culture, language, homeland, history, religion, cuisine" is part of ancestry, the Bronze Age isn't a good time to go for - very few of these things had even emerged by the end of the Bronze Age. Most nations and religions are significantly younger than that, and the Bronze Age featured the emergence of writing and language, so there's not much history there either (well, at least in recorded terms). I'm no expert on the diversification of cuisines as I'm British.

Angles and Saxons were both Germanic peoples, just FYI.


By your Bronze Age argument, I'm of Bavarian descent, as I'm English, of Welsh/English parents who were of Welsh/Welsh/Welsh/English parents. Moving back through the ages that leads to the Celts of Wales, who essentially were remnants of the British Celts following European Romanisation of the Celts. The British Celts were simply a remnant of the Iron Age expansion of the Celts across Europe, from their Swiss/Austrian roots - succeeding the earlier Hallstatt Iron Age and Urnfield Late Bronze Age cultures of the region, which succeeded the Tumulus Bronze Age culture, centred on Bavaria - although the Tumulus peoples followed the Unetice culture, largely based in the current Czech Republic/Slovakia region, but with some activity in Bavaria and Poland.

So there you go, I'm apparently Bavarian, not British. No wonder I like beer and leather.

I did not use "race" to signify someones ethnic background. You did use the word in your post directed to me. If you yourself asks to explain why i use colour and descent to signify race. (which I did not) You yourself believe that there is more then 1 human race? If you indeed want to go to "fundamentals" What does your specific use of the word "race" mean?

Someone can claim the sky is blue without to explain that fundamental knowledge. Your explanation about horses does not explain why horses are faster? Or if horses were always faster? But one does not need to explain that in detail to make the claim. I respect your specific way of analytical thinking in fundaments and principles but be aware it is not shared by everyone.

I actually can give you an answer to the question of athnicity and decent, because I have a fair knowledge of history (not anthropology) The answer however is much to complicated to post in a forumpost in a language I do not master. Perhaps you speak a little spanish and you communicate with friends very well in spanish. But explaining the origin, lineage, ancestry etc. of ethnic groups in spanish is much and much more difficult. I speak Dutch, german and chinese daily and I only use English on occasion. I debate much better in dutch ofcourse then in any other language. Therefore I just said I don't know.

I should have been aware not to mention anglo saxan and germanic in the same list (one is a subgroup) but I write from the top of my mind, so I made a little mixup. If you are citing everything from the top of your mind I am very impressed! I used to know a lot of facts by heart, but sadly my age is catching up to me.

 

[Danoff]

Someone can claim the sky is blue without to explain that fundamental knowledge. Your explanation about horses does not explain why horses are faster? Or if horses were always faster? But one does not need to explain that in detail to make the claim. I respect your specific way of analytical thinking in fundaments and principles but be aware it is not shared by everyone.

If you claim horses are faster, you'd be wrong (in many circumstances). And if you claim the sky is blue, you'd be wrong (in many circumstances). The commonality here is that you claimed to understand what makes someone white, and you were wrong. It's a poorly defined category, with no hard and fast rules to its membership. I think (I hope) you've now come to the realization that you agree with that position.

 

[Mr Tree]

By labelling it "interracial marriage" isnt that also like making it separate but equal? Otherwise it would just be called a marriage.

I don't get why this is considered an argument.
I used a descriptive label of a particular marriage as to make clear the marriage was between people of diffrent skincolor. We don't make that distinction in law. They're just married, within the seperate but equal one I heard people propose to call it diffrently for law.

So your argument would only be valid if, in law, we would call it diffrently.
On top of that they often advocate for a new word, not a descriptive label before marriage which makes these 2 cases even more diffrent from each other.

Edit: typo's

 

[PocketZeven]

If you claim horses are faster, you'd be wrong (in many circumstances). And if you claim the sky is blue, you'd be wrong (in many circumstances). The commonality here is that you claimed to understand what makes someone white, and you were wrong. It's a poorly defined category, with no hard and fast rules to its membership. I think (I hope) you've now come to the realization that you agree with that position.

I agree with your explanation. Because it is also a matter of poin of view and context (or as @Famine explained, perception) in these cases. I am very much guilty of oversimplifying statements that deserve much more indepth explanation and definition, which would have made my statements correct in my perception. For the sake of posting on an online forum I made statements, while correct in my own perception, that were way to simple and on itself not correct without proper information.

As for the definition of a "white person" in relation to this thread, being primarily US concentrated, the US government actually has defined certain "racial" catogories:

https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html

"White – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa."

Which actually makes the exact mistake I have made. What would your opinions be on this?

And back to "asian" privilege and day to day stereotyping and racism asians experience:



I understand this was supposed to be comedic segment, but they could have handled in less racist way.

 

[BobK]

As for the definition of a "white person" in relation to this thread, being primarily US concentrated, the US government actually has defined certain "racial" catogories:

https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html

"White – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa."

Which actually makes the exact mistake I have made. What would your opinions be on this?

I find it interesting that their definition of "Black or African American" is also flawed, although for a different reason:

Black or African American - A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa.

This actually really doesn't say anything, other than "Black is Black" (cue Los Bravos).

It highlights how difficult it really is to pin down "race".

 

[Mr Tree]

I find it interesting that their definition of "Black or African American" is also flawed, although for a different reason:


This actually really doesn't say anything, other than "Black is Black" (cue Los Bravos).

It highlights how difficult it really is to pin down "race".

Imo it shows how we are trying to define a concept that doesn't exist in ways we want to portray it.

 

[PocketZeven]

I find it interesting that their definition of "Black or African American" is also flawed, although for a different reason:


This actually really doesn't say anything, other than "Black is Black" (cue Los Bravos).

It highlights how difficult it really is to pin down "race".

Exactly. In my opinion the use of the word race should also be examined. It implies humans are genetically different "races", while there is only 1 human race. It doenst help that an official US government body states the existence of "races". These past few days have helped me get a better understanding of white supremacists who truly believe white people are a superior race genetically. In their thought they are a some sort of "lion" and other "races" are equivelent to lesser animals.

The use of ethnicities and ethnic groups would be much better.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Exactly. In my opinion the use of the word race should also be examined. It implies humans are genetically different "races", while there is only 1 human race. It doenst help that an official US government body states the existence of "races". These past few days have helped me get a better understanding of white supremacists who truly believe white people are a superior race genetically. In their thought they are a some sort of "lion" and other "races" are equivelent to lesser animals.

The use of ethnicities and ethnic groups would be much better.

Indeed, but historically (and relatively until very recently) we have identified in all kind of issues by 'race' so the word, if not the scientific basis, is alive and well. That's why there are legal definitions of what can been seen to constitute 'race' in certain arguments such as racial hatred.

 

[PocketZeven]

Indeed, but historically (and relatively until very recently) we have identified in all kind of issues by 'race' so the word, if not the scientific basis, is alive and well. That's why there are legal definitions of what can been seen to constitute 'race' in certain arguments such as racial hatred.

Perhaps redefining the use of "race" in biology and in human categorization could have effect on the notion that one race is superior to another. Genetically we are all the same. Race should only be used in biology to classify species/ sub species. In our language the word "race"is very seldom used (if ever) to classify ethnic groups. Is it even used anymore in the scientific community?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Perhaps redefining the use of "race" in biology and in human categorization could have effect on the notion that one race is superior to another.

Nope, that's a separate notion.

 

[Rallywagon]

Ten is right. No one really thinks of genetics in consideration to race, at least not as in terms of definition, or a lack of. For most people it's all about the visual representation, aka skin color. Someone looking to justify their racism may try to use science as a basis in an arguement, but at the end of the day, it's only the difference in pigment.

 

[PocketZeven]

Ten is right. No one really thinks of genetics in consideration to race, at least not as in terms of definition, or a lack of. For most people it's all about the visual representation, aka skin color. Someone looking to justify their racism may try to use science as a basis in an arguement, but at the end of the day, it's only the difference in pigment.

True, but I was thinking more in the sense of preparing future generations through education. The current use of "Race" to define skin color is just outdated and remnant of an older world. That old world thinking is the cause of modern color supremacy groups and divide. A beginning would be to remove it from government documents. Re-educating the youth that notion of black and white are not "races" but ethnic groups with a wealth of history, culture etc. hopefully will lead to less racist future generations.

 

[Danoff]

but at the end of the day, it's only the difference in pigment.

I don't think that's true, as evidenced by the albino kid and asian girl I posted earlier. Other physical characteristics besides pigment play at least as big a role.

 

[Rallywagon]

I don't think that's true, as evidenced by the albino kid and asian girl I posted earlier. Other physical characteristics besides pigment play at least as big a role.

Not how I meant it. I mean when people are using it to profile others in racist terms, skin color is generally the number one characteristic. The albino black kid would end up getting lumped in for being "African american" but the very first feature that is going to inform a racist is absolutely skin color. At the end of the day, a racist isnt going to differentiate between them being African, Dominican, Puerto Rican or what have you, they are only going to care that ultimately, they arent caucasian.

 

[mustafur]

Not how I meant it. I mean when people are using it to profile others in racist terms, skin color is generally the number one characteristic. The albino black kid would end up getting lumped in for being "African american" but the very first feature that is going to inform a racist is absolutely skin color. At the end of the day, a racist isnt going to differentiate between them being African, Dominican, Puerto Rican or what have you, they are only going to care that ultimately, they arent caucasian.

So Racist = white?

 

[PocketZeven]

Not how I meant it. I mean when people are using it to profile others in racist terms, skin color is generally the number one characteristic. The albino black kid would end up getting lumped in for being "African american" but the very first feature that is going to inform a racist is absolutely skin color. At the end of the day, a racist isnt going to differentiate between them being African, Dominican, Puerto Rican or what have you, they are only going to care that ultimately, they arent caucasian.

I understand the intention correctly.
There is even racism in the african community between light and dark skinned africans as well. Imagine how difficult an albino has it.

So Racist = white?

Dude, dont try to spin his comment. He was just using an example. Replace caucasian with asian, african-american etc. and you get the same result.

 

[Rallywagon]

So Racist = white?

Don't be a troll. Go read the last few pages and get caught up before you make ignorant assumptions

 

[TenEightyOne]

So Racist = white?

I can't see how you might think he said that? You should also note that this thread is about White Privilege, if you read through you'll notice that the notion isn't of something conferred just by 'white' people.

 

[mustafur]

These are bad times to be a Troll.