WE DON'T NEED A WHITE HISTORY MONTH.

[ooos]

DJ Twissta

Shouldn't we just celebrate the accomplishments we made together, as opposed to singling out individual ethnicities via months? I do agree about not many minority roles getting enough tv time. Although sometimes I notice the same stereotypical roles for white people in predominately minority sitcoms. Black history month sort of reminds me of how people treat Valentines day. Many people think they should only pay special attention to their girl friend/heritage on this day/month, and afterwards stop caring as much. Shouldn't we put more effort into integrating all of those accomplishments through out the year as opposed to only a month?

Couldn't agree more! heart

[911child]

Bashelia Peppita

Just as less as we need a Straight Pride Parade. Or a National Right Handed People Day. It just doesn't make any sense. A majority doesn't need to celebrate anything and over the course of history, a celebration like this would be very politically incorrect. White people don't have to fight for equality. There's an overrepresentation of white people in the media. White people are portrayed as diverse in tv shows and movies and a movie with a white lead is really easy to find. The other ethnicities, however, don't have that luxury. Whenever someone non-white apprears on TV, they immediately are portrayed in a stereotypical role. For black people, this has begun to change, but the other races, we still are forced to fill our stereotypical roles.

White people who don't believe me: turn on your tv, skim through the channels and count the white people. Believe me now?

Whats wrong with having a white history month? yeah there are alot of white people on tv, like you said we are the majority, in mexico, mexicans are the majority yet they have their celebrations, any where in the world has its celebrations. As for minorities being portrayed in a stereotypical roles yeah, it happens, but why not fight those roles saying that they do not define me. Yeah black people are portrayed by stereotypical roles as thieves and rapist, but look in the prison system for those who have stolen and those who have raped and you will see it is alot of black people in jail for those crimes. Why not let every one be proud of who they are? Yeah, im white, im also Japanese, do you know when Japanese History Month is? Its May. Do we (yes we, i am Japanese) get to alert people 4 months a head that black history month is approaching and let it seep into other months? no, we get a whisper, a faint memory of a day. Yes, whites had to over come issues, as blacks we had to separate ourselves from an oppressive government. yeah blacks got physically beat and oppressed, whos to say we didnt as well. Some part of history could have been burnt away. also, the japanese were oppressed and kept in containment camps, concentration camps just like Adolf's. though you dont see use getting mad at every american or white person we come acrossed asking for reperation money. we are passed it, like you all should be, its history. you cant change it.

[For Tomorrow]

Izzy Van Helsing

Can we make it clear that you refer to white people in countries like America?

Because in countries like South Africa, white people are treated almost as badly as the blacks were in America in the sixties. Raped, killed, beaten, robbed, etc. People there- wouldn't hurt for them to have a white history month equivalent, and a fight for equality, rights, etc.

Do your research.

[Bearorist]

X sansmerci

Designer Genes

Bashelia Peppita

Designer Genes

So straight people shouldn't display pride in the way we were born/ decide to be, but people with any other sexual preference should?

i think this quote says it all:

"I get sick of listening to straight people complain about, “Well, hey, we don’t have a heterosexual-pride day, why do you need a gay-pride day?” I remember when I was a kid I’d always ask my mom: “Why don’t we have a Kid’s Day? We have a Mother’s Day and a Father’s Day, but why don’t we have a Kid’s Day?” My mom would always say, “Every day is Kid’s Day.” To all those heterosexuals that b***h about gay pride, I say the same thing: Every day is heterosexual-pride day! Can’t you people enjoy your banquet and not piss on those of us enjoying our crumbs over here in the corner?"
- Rob Nash

So... straight people shouldn';t have the right to display pride in the way they're born purely based on the way others treat them. Therefore, the right to celebrate individuality is only granted if one's individuality is under perceived assault from certain groups?

Quote:

There plainly doesn't have to be one. Do straight people have higher suicidal tendencies because they're straight? Do straight people receive scorn from their parents and society because they're straight? Do straight couples fear holding hands in public because of the bad things that people may say about them?

So I don't deserve a pride parade because of the suffering someone else goes through. I should obviously not want to celebrate myself because someone else out there has problems not dissimilar to my own, but for dissimilar reasons?

Quote:

In its very essence, gay pride is about finding acceptance in society

Because straight people never struggle with this. All of us breeders are instantly socially accepted in every way imaginable.

Quote:

and fighting for equal rights.

As long as those equal rights don't ever benefit the majority equally, right? After all, they don't need it as much.

Quote:

And all I'm saying is, because heterosexuality is evident (and actually quite banal), it doesn't need to have a day. But it already exists in Brazil. Straights had fun, and that's about it, I guess. They achieved nothing.

Well, I'm glad all the feathers glitz and glam saved the gay cause, not years of actual effort.

Quote:

Since I don't have time, I'll get back to you about the race issue. 3nodding

Kay.

Quote:

Wow, you seem to feel really upset that there isn't a straight pride day, and like people are trying to keep things from you with the lack of one. If you do feel as martyred as your tone suggests (internet, after all), I do hope that you feel better. 3nodding

Nope, I don't feel upset or anything. Hell, I think all pride days tend to do is just play up stereotypes that the group it is "supporting" usually tries to fight against. But it is a double standard, and a form of basic inequality that public pride in one's sense of self is only okay if that pride is in something considered "minority."

Quote:

I think that if you perhaps take a step beck from your personal experience and whatever struggles you've faced or are facing (since you imply that you've felt difficulty in being accepted) it will be easier for you to see from another perspective.

Gay pride movements exist because of the inequity specific to being queer.

So why create more inequity by supporting one group's right to a movement, but not another's?

Quote:

The word pride is not just "yeah, I'm awesome!" but specifically used because they are movements in response to systematic & constant poor treatment, ranging from the outright abusive to merely being treated as "other" or having (queer) existence erased. The word pride is used because it's in response to environments with a consistent tone of "You should be ashamed".

So the entire movement is to flip off the haters? I thought that was called "coming out of the closet." Either way, all people endure prejudice and injustice; suffering at the hands of others. If that suffering should inspire public pride in one group, shouldn't all suffering peoples get that same right? Why should you divide up humanity when it is so clear that the human race needs consolidating?

Quote:

With that context in mind, perhaps it's a little less unclear why anger over a lack of straight pride celebrations is gauche?

Because gays suffer more loudly?

Quote:

If you're straight, that part of you fits into what society has deemed Acceptable Default Human, so you don't have any massive systematic hate based on your straightness to carry on in spite of.

And yet one can still be proud of the way they were created. Why shouldn't I get the same opportunity as others based purely on how I feel?

Quote:

For people who do not fit into "default", it comes across as greedy and crass when someone who does is pissed that whatever aspect we're talking about doesn't have the same things. Separate things unique to GLBTQ people, unique to black people, unique to women, (whatever else you might name) exist because members of those groups were excluded from the mainstream and made their own (entertainment/support systems/whatever). That is what the quote is referring to with the banquette/crumbs metaphor.

Again, all people suffer. It is part of the human condition. We are all included and excluded. That doesn't mean that I should be unable to have time dedicated to my group any less simply because the social perception is that we are not "hurting."

Quote:

To use pretend groups, so nobody has to feel like it's about them: sweatdrop
Say starbelly sneetches are most common in sneechland, so the most popular movies & TV shows are all about starbellies. Starless sneetches can't get a break, so, tired of never seeing stories about them and what their lives are like, make their own TV channel so they can have one place to see stories of themselves. Sam O'Starbelly complains that the is StarlessTV but no BellyTV channel, and lets all of his friends know that he finds it very unfair.

See, this is a great example. The tv shows only show the star bellies more because there are more starbellies. Exclusion by density. However, to specifically create a network that focuses on starlesses creates a conscious distinction, not a mathematical one. If there can be a starless tv, focusing openly on starless issues, entertainment, etc., then no one should have a problem with there being a specifically "Starbelly TV" which would then focus on issues important to starbellies.

Quote:

Minorities who want equal rights are not excluding the majority, they are playing catch-up. So "As long as those equal rights don't ever benefit the majority equally, right?" really isn't something that anyone would need to worry about. If I wanted to marry someone of the same sex, I'd be SOL, even though it'd be totally cool in more states than not to be married to my first cousin, for example.

See, as far laws go, I agree, we should all be equal. But when it comes to giving a minority group more rights simply because they suffer more loudly is not equality. And that is what it should be about. Wanting equality, not double standards based on your perception of suffering.

[X sansmerci]

Designer Genes

•So the entire movement is to flip off the haters?
No.
•I thought that was called "coming out of the closet."
Also no.

…

• Because gays suffer more loudly?
No, again.

• Why shouldn't I get the same opportunity as others based purely on how I feel?
I didn't say you were not allowed to be proud, I explained why straight pride (or white, or any other dominant group) is not the same thing and why you will be seen as a self-satisfied p***k if you make a point of vocalizing it. They're still your feelings, whatever they are.

See, this is a great example. The tv shows only show the star bellies more because there are more starbellies. Exclusion by density. However, to specifically create a network that focuses on starlesses creates a conscious distinction, not a mathematical one. If there can be a starless tv, focusing openly on starless issues, entertainment, etc., then no one should have a problem with there being a specifically "Starbelly TV" which would then focus on issues important to starbellies.

No. Just because nobody openly sat down and said "Let's only talk about Starbelly issues!" does not mean that the existing channels are not already Starbelly TV. I really don't understand how you could read that hypothetical and follow it but still miss that. Consciousness doesn't matter. Starbellies had the privilege of not thinking about the fact that they were making movies and shows about themselves only, and limiting starless to supporting, usually archetypal, roles in those stories.
Again, they can- and probably will- still make a stink and make their own channel, one that's now consciously all about Starbellies as opposed to the other 500 where it "kinda just happened". But that does not make those involved less colossal assholes for drawing false equivalence. Pushing people out of your sandbox and then pitching a fit when they play on their own is never going to be just or classy.


See, as far laws go, I agree, we should all be equal. But when it comes to giving a minority group more rights simply because they suffer more loudly is not equality. And that is what it should be about. Wanting equality, not double standards based on your perception of suffering.

Nobody is giving minorities more rights, I know I didn't advocate that in my post. So I can only figure you somehow think you have less rights because nobody has made a parade for your straightness yet. You have the right to go to one or make one, nobody has said straight people can't do drag or whatever the hell you think it is that queer folk have that you don't. The right to do so does not necessarily mean you will be free from criticism, of course, but that's a pretty universal concept.

But you know what? I am also kinda put off by your insistance on acting like because we all suffer all suffering is equal. No. Some groups do experience more s**t, some people do suffer more. Acknowledging that doesn't diminish the individual pain of a member of the majority, but insisting that everyone's suffering is the same, so everyone deserves the same things in the same ways same same same, does ignore the reality of Othered people.

You are not hurting because you are straight. You ain't. You might personally fell pain about a particular person you'd like to do straight things with, but your straightness doesn't dictate that you will be treated as nonexistent to subhuman by society as a whole. Your frustration at seeing minorities support each other does not metamophosize you into a member of an equally oppressed group. And acting like it does is grotesque.

I know this post was less hand-holding than my last one, that's intentional. Reading through your response, I honestly don't believe you have it in you at this point in time to see things from my perspective even as an exercise, never mind for real-real. I don't have the energy to rephrase five times in the most cotton-swaddled language if I have an audience that's set on being offended/excluded/martyred. And it's frankly insulting to both of our intelligence to pretend you're interested in having your hand held.

[Axew69]

A valid point...

[Bearorist]

X sansmerci

I didn't say you were not allowed to be proud, I explained why straight pride (or white, or any other dominant group) is not the same thing and why you will be seen as a self-satisfied p***k if you make a point of vocalizing it. They're still your feelings, whatever they are.

So, being proud of the way I was born and voicing makes me a self satisfied p***k purely based on the way I am viewed by default by society that doesn't know me? Seems like a pretentious little notion you have there.

X sansmerci

No. Just because nobody openly sat down and said "Let's only talk about Starbelly issues!" does not mean that the existing channels are not already Starbelly TV. I really don't understand how you could read that hypothetical and follow it but still miss that.

Because in real life, all stations excluding BET are not white people TV. In fact, most networks go out of their way to avoid being seen as racially affiliated. And I cannot think of any network (nor can I find one on, and I have DirectTV with access to 900+ channels) that specifically caters to white crowds openly. Seems like if you want white media, you gotta stay in the closet about it, where as if you want black media, you've got BET, you want gay media you have Out!, LoGo, Oxygen, etc.

Quote:

Consciousness doesn't matter. Starbellies had the privilege of not thinking about the fact that they were making movies and shows about themselves only, and limiting starless to supporting, usually archetypal, roles in those stories.

Because it is perceived, not intended.

Quote:

Again, they can- and probably will- still make a stink and make their own channel, one that's now consciously all about Starbellies as opposed to the other 500 where it "kinda just happened". But that does not make those involved less colossal assholes for drawing false equivalence. Pushing people out of your sandbox and then pitching a fit when they play on their own is never going to be just or classy.

Or, that perception of exclusion goes too far, and people become so enthralled with the idea of "******** the majority" that they don't even realize that by setting two standards, they are still judging two people differently based on how they are born. Which is prejudiced. Of course, when you're prejudice against a group you perceive as prejudice, it becomes much easier to convince yourself that your exclusionary beliefs are justified.

Quote:

Nobody is giving minorities more rights

Really?

Quote:

I know I didn't advocate that in my post.

No, I guess not. You more so advocated social inequity rather than rights inequity. My bad.

Quote:

So I can only figure you somehow think you have less rights because nobody has made a parade for your straightness yet.

Yes and no. I mean, tax dollars do get put into gay pride parades as "social enrichment" where as tax dollars are put into shutting down white pride parades as "potentially racially charged events." But hey, the way tax dollars are spent isn't really reflecting anything anyways, right?

Quote:

You have the right to go to one or make one, nobody has said straight people can't do drag or whatever the hell you think it is that queer folk have that you don't. The right to do so does not necessarily mean you will be free from criticism, of course, but that's a pretty universal concept.

However, people in the name of equality have given acceptance to pride in one's heritage, but only if it was hated on in America at some point. Again, it is pretentious and prejudiced.

Quote:

But you know what? I am also kinda put off by your insistance on acting like because we all suffer all suffering is equal.

Right, because you've invented a system for measuring human suffering. Please. We don't suffer as any group smaller than the human species. If one of us suffers, we all suffer. To say that one suffers more because of how they are born doesn't take into account that the degree with which one suffers is not necessarily tied to the social groups they are part of. To divide our issues and say that "This group suffers this. You wouldn't know because you're not of that group/ thinking of that group." is just more pretentious and closed minded bullshit.

Quote:

No. Some groups do experience more s**t, some people do suffer more. Acknowledging that doesn't diminish the individual pain of a member of the majority, but insisting that everyone's suffering is the same, so everyone deserves the same things in the same ways same same same, does ignore the reality of Othered people

So the reality of "Othered" people is one of unshared suffering? Honestly, you're just being close minded, pretentious, and op[positional to a perceived norm. If you honestly can say that giving social acceptance to some groups, but think that social acceptance to others is unwarranted, that is exclusionary thinking. My stance is one of equality and open-mindedness. Seems those things aren't important to you as long as your groups are represented.

[X sansmerci]

Designer Genes

If you honestly can say that giving social acceptance to some groups, but think that social acceptance to others is unwarranted, that is exclusionary thinking. My stance is one of equality and open-mindedness. Seems those things aren't important to you as long as your groups are represented.

That's not what I'm saying but, as noted, you are very much intent on casting me as (whatever), so I don't think it will make much difference if I use different words. I guess pretension is what you're accusing me of, though I don't know what you're saying I'm pretending. I'm mostly just amused at the choice of phrase since you're so interested in majority groups being able to lick their non-existant wounds of oppression because you see minority groups doing so.

You haven't got a clue as to what's important to me, & have done nothing but put words into my mouth in the form of snarky rhetorical. And, just in case someone reading along would like to accuse me of failing to explain it well enough (as is a common response when it is clear that neither party holds with the other), I can lead a horse to water but I can't force it to drink. I can tell you intent doesn't count for s**t, but that doesn't mater if you're pretty goddamn sure that you're right.

I'm not going to invest my time into teaching remedial privilege checking 101 when it's neither wanted nor paid work. wink

[Bearorist]

X sansmerci

Designer Genes

If you honestly can say that giving social acceptance to some groups, but think that social acceptance to others is unwarranted, that is exclusionary thinking. My stance is one of equality and open-mindedness. Seems those things aren't important to you as long as your groups are represented.

That's not what I'm saying but, as noted, you are very much intent on casting me as (whatever), so I don't think it will make much difference if I use different words. I guess pretension is what you're accusing me of, though I don't know what you're saying I'm pretending. I'm mostly just amused at the choice of phrase since you're so interested in majority groups being able to lick their non-existant wounds of oppression because you see minority groups doing so.

You haven't got a clue as to what's important to me, & have done nothing but put words into my mouth in the form of snarky rhetorical. And, just in case someone reading along would like to accuse me of failing to explain it well enough (as is a common response when it is clear that neither party holds with the other), I can lead a horse to water but I can't force it to drink. I can tell you intent doesn't count for s**t, but that doesn't mater if you're pretty goddamn sure that you're right.

I'm not going to invest my time into teaching remedial privilege checking 101 when it's neither wanted nor paid work. wink

So basically, it is okay to create inequality as long as you perceive that other forms of inequality have failed to benefit you? Again, it isn't about healing wounds. It is about all people given equal opportunity and benefit. Just because majority groups already have what all others should doesn't mean that they should have to give up part of their slice. There is certainly not a limited amount of equality. So what one is entitled to by virtue of birth, we are all entitled to by virtue of birth.

Hey, as long as you use proper grammar and semantics, points don't need to be actually discussed, do they?

You've continued to argue my point of equality, which would imply that you do not think people should have equal standings socially? That people should view others as different and more or less deserving based on the the group mentality and social standing of one's race, sex, sexual identity, etc?

Seems the liberal isn't really so liberal.

Edit: So what exactly are you saying? You say you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. What water have you lead me to? If your point was so obvious, then why not say it? I wouldn't be snarkily putting words into your mouth if you'd simply put them in your own to begin with. Of course, you also say that it doesn't matter when the other person is intent that they are right. So why does this not seem to apply for you? I feel I am right because I feel that all humans are equal, and should be treated as such. If you disagree, then say so.

[X sansmerci]

Designer Genes

X sansmerci

I'm not going to invest my time into teaching remedial privilege checking 101 when it's neither wanted nor paid work. wink

…

I have said my peace, but feel free to re-read my previous posts if you are sincerely curious about what I had to say. I doubt it will do much for you, based on the degree to which you've already had difficultly with comprehending my meaning, especially since you seem to now be under the impression that I am opposed to equality.

But there isn't anything more for me to say to you on the topic, so you'll have to be satisfied with that.

[hooligan__xo]

Cant Let This Go

Every month is White History month.

♪ May your neighbors respect you,
Trouble neglect you,
Angels protect you
&Heaven accept you ♫

Exactly. So let's just have this one month to appreciate Black history, since people seem to not care any other month of the year.

I mean really, they take the whole "Valentines Day concept". You should love who you love everyday of the year, just like you should appreciate & know black history everyday of the year -- not just one month out if it.

♯♩♪♫♬♭♯♩♪♫♬♭

♪ Go On & try to tear me down,
I will be rising from the ground,
Like a Skyscraper ... ♫

[Chocolate Rave]

Bashelia Peppita

Rave0001

wow a lot of people didnt like this lol, i guess they were offended xd

I'm just speaking the truth as it is. 3nodding I'm actually sorry I made this thread because I sparked a lot of arguments.

me and my sister were laughing about it, at least I didn't get dragged into one of the arguments

[Lady Ravenway]

Bashelia Peppita

Just as less as we need a Straight Pride Parade. Or a National Right Handed People Day. It just doesn't make any sense. A majority doesn't need to celebrate anything and over the course of history, a celebration like this would be very politically incorrect. White people don't have to fight for equality. There's an overrepresentation of white people in the media. White people are portrayed as diverse in tv shows and movies and a movie with a white lead is really easy to find. The other ethnicities, however, don't have that luxury. Whenever someone non-white apprears on TV, they immediately are portrayed in a stereotypical role. For black people, this has begun to change, but the other races, we still are forced to fill our stereotypical roles.

White people who don't believe me: turn on your tv, skim through the channels and count the white people. Believe me now?

100% agree! But, even black people aren't out of the woods for the media. I think there is still room for a lot of change. The other minorities still aren't represented enough either, that or given stereotypical roles as you mentioned.

If anyone still doesn't believe this not only count the number of white people on your channels but, go look at records for awards like the grammys. Count how many minorities(because that will be easier) you see over the last ten years. Compare to the number of white persons given awards. Big difference.

[Cuddlylittlebrat]

Candy Is Acid

giggleboxforevabby

Candy Is Acid

giggleboxforevabby

Candy Is Acid

giggleboxforevabby

Im just adding this cause I saw it mentioned...

Why should we dedicate more than two channels to a race? White people dont have one, Mexicans dont, chinese dont...etc.

Honestly there are no african americans anymore.

Im an extreamly neutral person. I hate racist people. Im a pansexual mutt. xD

i dont know if anyone addressed you on this. Latino's (Spanished speakers) do have there own channel. In fact more than a handfull. Asian's Also have there own channel for thir language also a big handful. Blacks we only have what? 3 or 4?
Also on your other post above this.
It is racist in every movie bascially. Count how many time you seen a inter racial couple ( Black male w/ white female without being a highly known black male actor, and not about how hard it is to be in a interracial relationship? Basically none. :/

Yeah someone already said that...and I said I was wrong about there not being a spanish channel. PAY ATTENTION. Ive only seen a few movies or tv shows where it was about struggles of interracial relationships. The other ones (more than ten) didnt even make note of race.

actual yeah they do. they always have tension suggesting to race. Like something new and many more directors and big movie people even admitted ( i read in a few articles about 3 months back) that yeah its because white audience don't feel comfortable with seeing "one of their kind" with a minority. or they refuse the movie. a case study show they took a romatic movie and an action movie same plot they advertised to multiple race's showing diffrent characters ( each movie plot had one with an all white leas, another with all black leads, and finally the last with an interacial couple as the lead" studies showed that people said they wouldt see the movie with all black cast and deff wouldnt see with an interracial couple. ( trying to summarize this whole thing) anyways there are sudies showing racism in movie production

You have no proof of any of that, please learn to spell.

I can actual spell right I had just logged in and was trying to type fast because I had to get to other people. Also here is a link to what I was talking about partially. I cannot track down the original article I saw a few months ago.
http://racismdaily.com/2011/07/14/study-reveals-movie-interests-are-racially-based/

Just because you see more white people in movies doesnt mean thats because the producer was racist. Its just tv. Its not like their saying that that is how it needs to be.

[-EboniiSkinn-]

Something tells me a lot of people who voted this thread down were white.