[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I guess I don't see what's "racist" about any of these terms - would "black girl" or "Christie" (I think that's the black Barbie doll?) or "chocolate/mocha" or "cocoa puff" or "looks like we're finally getting a fondue pot on campus" or "gospel choirs are like Kenny G for black people" really be racist? I mean, they'd be stupid and racially motivated, but that's not really the same thing as "racist" . . . maybe you picked a bad example, but I don't see how it connects with your conclusion. This is without getting into the fact that, although the movie probably sucked, it's fine to portray an 'outsider' being treated as such - in fact, it's probably good.

With that said . . . racial cracks against white people are "OK" (read: accepted) because they carry no power. It's just like why there aren't any 'slurs' against heterosexuals - it's not like there's been 'straight oppression' at any point. Hack comedians like to joke that blacks get February for Black History Month because whites get the other 11 months, but that's basically true, and it kind of explains something I think you're missing.

Here's the thing: most people (especially white people) think that the true pinnacle of racial equality will occur when people simply do not see color. This is kind of stupid, since it's almost impossible for it to happen. True equality will be equality in every way - such as making race-based jokes about white people, and removing the power from similar jokes about minorities.

Once people stop 'seeing' color, they will find something else to be prejudicial about.

In some cultures that frame of mind already exist.

Humankind has a habit of wanting validation.

We will always have a need to find a way to be distinguishable from someone else.