Never thought I’d be on the same side of a debate as Miller.
Me too. If people want to either use it or interpret it as a racist symbol, well that just sucks.
I’m currently leaning more toward the Bonnie Blue as a symbol of heritage and pride as it is much less a hot button - OMG!!! UR A RACIST!!!. Um, no I’m not.
Then I appologize, Zoe, for the “Dixie” comment. I should have said, “The Confederacy” and all that.
(I will confess, however, that as a name for a flag, “Stars and Bars” sounds a lot better than “Stars and Stripes.”) Okay, carry on.
Hhhmm.
Mass genocide by despotic rulers comes to mind.
Female circumcision.
Enslavement.
Baby rape as “a cure for AIDS.”
Murder of white African farmers because of their skin color.
Somalia. 'Nuff said.
Africa is a continent and I wasn’t aware there was a continental flag for Africa. Am I missing something here???
As for the OP, there used to be a time, let’s say 50 years ago where black people could not go to the same places that whites could. Even after legislation was passed, that still persisted. There where instances where the national guard had to brought out to enforce the laws that people did not obey and that includes members of law inforcement. And while it may be true that there is racism towards whites by blacks, it pales in comparison to the racism of blacks by whites. Moreover, the racism by whites against blacks follows in the tradition of disenfranchising blacks economically, socially and politically.
Now, if outrage against racism in this country was handled on this board in a proportional fashion, we would see at least 20 threads abhoring racism practiced by whites for every one thread complaining about the evils of racism practiced by blacks against whites. I’m a guest and I can’t search, but I doubt if those threads are there i.e. the outrage isn’t proportional which makes sense because most of the posters on this board are white.
Trust me, your hunch is quite sound.
Ptooey. History abounds in examples of minorities who have oppressed majorities. The mere fact that a group of people (whether defined by race, ethnicity, class or religion) is a minority does not by any means mean that they are oppressed and need protection from the majority; it may well be that the majority needs protection from them. Hell, the oppression of the majority is practically the definition of tyranny. In feudal Europe, a minority (the nobility) ran roughshot over the majority (the serfs and peasants); I would say it was the commoners who needed protection from the nobility, not the other way around. Quite recently, the Sunni minority in Iraq lorded it over the Shi’ite majority. Were the Sunnis oppressed simply because they were the minority? Did they need protection from the Shi’ites?
All too often, what a minority really wants is the power to bully the majority.
[/QUOTE]
I believe you are speaking of a numerical minority. Sociologists contend that a minority is not a status given numerically. It is derived from the determination that the group :A) has disitinctive characteristics, B) Has less power, and 3) is subject to unfair treatment. For example, women in the U.S. are a minority, although a numerical majority. In apartheid South Africa, the whites were a numerical minority, but the blacks were actually the minorities. This can be applied to anything and the use of minority based simply on numbers lacks depth. There are many numerical minority groups, such as people who wear glasses, or people who have freckles, but unless they face unfair treatment and have differential access to power, they would never be classified as a minority.
I believe these are the definitions that many in this thread have been referring to.
If anyone is wondering what happened to saluki_fan, here’s his answer.