Stereotype vs Prejudice

[FreshFish]

Re: Stereotype vs Prejudice

We had an interesting discussion that slavery was not racist but tribal.

The facts seem to fit on both sides. The English have a long history of dominating other groups, from the Scots to the Welsh to the Irish to the Indians to the native Americans. They actually treated the Irish more harshly than they treated slaves...at least they fed their slaves, yet when the Irish (when under British rule) faced starvation, the English continued to ship food for export and passed laws making it illegal for English landlords in Ireland to divert food to the indigenous people.

So the English treated everyone else as their servants, not merely blacks....so for the "oppressor" it was tribal not racial.

Same thing on the slave side: the blacks were not enslaved by whites, they were first enslaved by other blacks who then sold them to the slave traders. Yes, slavery started as black on black crime, a tool of tribal warfare.

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Stereotype vs Prejudice

Unless you would come to the same conclusion if the three youths are white, that is a racist conclusion.I think the term you are looking for here is "Tea Partier." Try Googling what you wrote. Then stop using it, it is really offensive.

You know how offensive it is, yet continue to use it yourself?? That makes you either a leftie dooshebag or a rightie dip5hit.

Thanks to the bump today by FF, I saw this.

Ummm, as I remember it, the tea-baggers were calling themselves this until they found out what it meant outside of puritanical circles. Of course, those of us who had heard of it and other things like the Dirty Sanchez and "Santorum" were giggling to ourselves.

After a quick Google, I found this which confirms that I was remembering it correctly...


http://theweek.com/article/index/202620/the-evolution-of-the-word-tea-bagger


"The grassroots movement didn't always consider "tea bagger" a slur: Early Tea Partiers innocently embraced the term until they discovered its vulgar connotations (see also the 1998 John Waters movie Pecker)."


Conservative shut-ins sure can be fun.

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Stereotype vs Prejudice

We had an interesting discussion that slavery was not racist but tribal.

The facts seem to fit on both sides. The English have a long history of dominating other groups, from the Scots to the Welsh to the Irish to the Indians to the native Americans. They actually treated the Irish more harshly than they treated slaves...at least they fed their slaves, yet when the Irish (when under British rule) faced starvation, the English continued to ship food for export and passed laws making it illegal for English landlords in Ireland to divert food to the indigenous people.

So the English treated everyone else as their servants, not merely blacks....so for the "oppressor" it was tribal not racial.

Same thing on the slave side: the blacks were not enslaved by whites, they were first enslaved by other blacks who then sold them to the slave traders. Yes, slavery started as black on black crime, a tool of tribal warfare.

Agreed. Brent and I had a similar conversation this weekend. It all depends on the timeframe. Now we realize that slavery is pretty ****ty, but back in the day, it was just the way it was. It wasn't "wrong" back then, because it was an accepted practice, but luckily our society evolved and now it is considered terrible.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Stereotype vs Prejudice

We had an interesting discussion that slavery was not racist but tribal.

The facts seem to fit on both sides. The English have a long history of dominating other groups, from the Scots to the Welsh to the Irish to the Indians to the native Americans. They actually treated the Irish more harshly than they treated slaves...at least they fed their slaves, yet when the Irish (when under British rule) faced starvation, the English continued to ship food for export and passed laws making it illegal for English landlords in Ireland to divert food to the indigenous people.

So the English treated everyone else as their servants, not merely blacks....so for the "oppressor" it was tribal not racial.

Same thing on the slave side: the blacks were not enslaved by whites, they were first enslaved by other blacks who then sold them to the slave traders. Yes, slavery started as black on black crime, a tool of tribal warfare.

I don't think it's anything specific to the English though. I'd say it's more like, for the most part in human history, the more powerful group dominated and enslaved the less powerful group(s).

 

[Patman]

Thanks to the bump today by FF, I saw this.

Ummm, as I remember it, the tea-baggers were calling themselves this until they found out what it meant outside of puritanical circles. Of course, those of us who had heard of it and other things like the Dirty Sanchez and "Santorum" were giggling to ourselves.

After a quick Google, I found this which confirms that I was remembering it correctly...


http://theweek.com/article/index/202620/the-evolution-of-the-word-tea-bagger


"The grassroots movement didn't always consider "tea bagger" a slur: Early Tea Partiers innocently embraced the term until they discovered its vulgar connotations (see also the 1998 John Waters movie Pecker)."


Conservative shut-ins sure can be fun.

It was a term used by a couple of people... And then Rachel Maddow decided to blast it far and wide as the epithet to use because a very limited "them" used it so that made it OK in the hearts of liberals. The words of a dumb few become the epithet for the enlightened many.

It's a reminder that liberals need to hate and take joy in that hateful sense of superiority. The rapidity that the term entered the nomenclature in this sense only serves to confirm this.

But please, pat yourself on the back for being enlightened. Sure you might be wrong but since when did that stop anybody? Some of us actually do remember history in real-time.

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Stereotype vs Prejudice

Unless you would come to the same conclusion if the three youths are white, that is a racist conclusion.I think the term you are looking for here is "Tea Partier." Try Googling what you wrote. Then stop using it, it is really offensive.

You know how offensive it is, yet continue to use it yourself?? That makes you either a leftie dooshebag or a rightie dip5hit.

It was a term used by a couple of people... And then Rachel Maddow decided to blast it far and wide as the epithet to use because a very limited "them" used it so that made it OK in the hearts of liberals. The words of a dumb few become the epithet for the enlightened many.

It's a reminder that liberals need to hate and take joy in that hateful sense of superiority. The rapidity that the term entered the nomenclature in this sense only serves to confirm this.

But please, pat yourself on the back for being enlightened. Sure you might be wrong but since when did that stop anybody? Some of us actually do remember history in real-time.

I actually heard it and snickered in superiority before Maddow did her piece. Thanks for clarifying my own personal timeline for me though.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Stereotype vs Prejudice

I don't think it's anything specific to the English though. I'd say it's more like, for the most part in human history, the more powerful group dominated and enslaved the less powerful group(s).

The same basic model has always been followed. What has evolved (primarily through technology) is the basis of power:

1. Brute force
2. Religious mysticism
3. Family pedigree
4. Money
5. Information