Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by halfoldman
1. Some bad guys in movies are bound to be white but it's a stretch to say it's 98% of the time.
2. I have seen many instances of white pride being celebrated (Irish, Italian, Polish, German parades). 4th of July parades in the US are celebrating
American culture which inlcudes all races. Now those parades held by the White Pride groups that believe in separate but equal or worse. Yeah they get
3.When I was in school all we read about was all the important discoveries and inventions white men had made or created. Downplayed? I don't think
4.The only real atrocities that I remember from school were the Native americans, the holocaust during WWII and Pol Pot. Recently the media has
covered Bosnia, Congo, Guatemala, Rwanda, Tibet and others. Doesn't look like they are saying only whites are evil.
edit on 8-5-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)
Movies - haven't done a real study. My feeling as a younger, more liberal student was the opposite, and that the black or yellow 'peril' was usually
stereotyped. However, I have noticed a marked change in that US minorities are always innocent or justified, and white cops are violent and
Never-mind cops - that's all eventually justifying a system of power over all.
But I have noticed a trend making out white teens as generally fake and unsavory characters who are all rich.
As such they are actually corrupting the other races to sell them drugs.
It's like the stereotype of drug pushing in reverse.
A horrible but popular genre.
Then we have US "War porn" about Iraq and Afghanistan, which neither discusses Islamic radicalism or army psychology.
One is just waiting for another bomb to pop its nut.
Parades - aren't those ethnic parades? Why see them as generically white parades?
Interesting that various ethnic community parades are marked as "white".
Are other races and ethnic groups segregated from partaking?
School - it's good that you're learning of inventions, but are these inventors really touted as "white inventors"?
What do they learn on Rwanda and China?
That could be framed in many ways.
Whites invented socialism (although many would not admit that) and they created Rwanda, by forcing the poor Hutus and Tutsis into one country.
But that's not true, the Hutus and Tutsis already hated each other long before the tiny white administration.
In most discussions of that horrible genocide blacks are given the idea that they are wholly not to blame (although it wasn't the first explosion of
that, and it mirrors conflicts across Africa).
And because they shift ultimate responsibility, it happens repeatedly.
It is never taught in a way where blacks, or black Africa must face itself, like Germany had to face itself after the holocaust.
The blame is always shifted, from French machetes to British colonials, to the UN, to US news-rooms.
Nobody can tell Africans that THEY are capable of a genocide!
Oh dear, the poor angels.
Oh and then Pol Pot, in my books it says it was because the nasty Americans bombed Cambodia.
They were not to blame for what they did in their country, not one little bit.
So there are subtle varieties of truth to every story, and one can blow up the "white guilt" proportion to enormous levels.
Ultimately a people or movement that is truly peaceful will not kill, and incorruptible people will not be corrupted.
So a lot of that history is a post-1970s cop out.
It's teaching the new generation of Pol Pots what argument to use as an excuse.
But ultimately school is just a foundation.
People are really radicalized at universities, and this is where opinion becomes infused with social dominance and ideology.
What academia means sometimes gets taken out of context in politics.
But that is where most politicians learn their discourse.
And all that humanities' students learn there for three years is how wicked the whites and males are.
Sure it can be subtle, and few take it far enough to really learn thinking and not just parroting.
But where else do people learn things like: white males have it easy, and women and blacks are equally oppressed?
Or stuff like: "all cultures are equal" (especially the ones no white woman ever wants to live in).
Sure it's good to learn tolerance.
But it's not good to find only one social devil - the white male - when you walk out.
I'm not saying everybody does that, but a lot of youngsters do.
I did at a stage.
The start of postmodernism was good, it wanted to look at the "other" - the person usually silenced by white male academia.
But that was 30 years ago, and my concern is that when people become "anti-white male" (even white male students) that they will no longer be proud of
the positive things in their culture, and they will let in open dictatorships simply because they are from other cultures.
edit on 8-5-2011 by
halfoldman because: (no reason given)