Yes, it's why they all wear sombreros and eat nachos.
White guy (to Filipino girl): Filipino ... that's, like, in Mexico, isn't it?
-- VRL, overheard by Crystal, Jess and Heather
-- VRL, overheard by Crystal, Jess and Heather
posted by Overheard at Western at 10:44 PM
55 Comments:
Hardy har har!
"White guy ... that'd make you, like, from Whiteistan, wouldn't it? Land of the white people?"
white people, especially in london, are so ignorant.
Is it just me, or Philippino and Filipino are same sh*t now?
^huh?
2:24 you're a racist.
this thread has all the makings of an impending bitch fight
Jerry, Jerry, Jerry!!!
actaully, in response to 5:49's comment, the country is spelled with a 'ph' but the people is spelled with an 'f' as in "I am a Filipino from the Philippines" I don't know why this is.
anyone see that comedy thread called "Wetback Mountain"?? pretty funny...
for 1.13.
checked. u are right. my bad. my apologies :)
6:38, you ever hear about white privilege? And many white people in London are pretty damned ignorant, even if 2:24 was generalizing a little.
I'm white, but I have to echo 2:03 PM. It's pretty hard for white people not to be ignorant about their privilege. It has nothing to do with white people being inherently malicious or insensitive; it's just that there's no way a person can understand what it's like to be a minority. Even in locales where white people are not in the majority, white people are generally privileged in this world.
Just for an idea of the factors of which we are not always aware:
http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc598ge/Unpacking.html#daily
wait a minute; globally, aren't white people the minority??
2:22's website has some good points, some boring ones, and some bad ones, like this one : "My children are given texts and classes which implicitly support our kind of family unit and do not turn them against my choice of domestic partnership." A lot of black people have "normal" families, and many white people, even rich white people, do not.
10:24pm, globally white people are a minority but since that's not what you base it on. You base "minority" on a certain locale, ie. a country, city, state/province, etc. So what you may want to point out is that in some places white people would be the minority; but white people being the "minority globally" doesn't really matter too much, unless I'm mistaken (and I could be, someone point out some effects of the "white minority"?)
dazz.
None of this will matter in a generation or two anyway because everyone in Canada will be some shade of beige.
(...and that's a good thing!)
^ In a generation or two, many people in large multicultural cities (like Toronto) will be of mixed race. But there will still be many areas where white people are the majority. In many small Canadian towns, there are people who have only ever seen black people on TV. Small town Canada, which makes up a large part of this country's population, is generations behind Toronto when it comes to being multicultural. And there are still a lot of people, from both small towns and large cities, who do not agree with interracial breeding.
True...but you have to look at the overall direction of the demographics.
The population of "small-town" Canada is in rapid decline, whereas all of the population growth is occuring in the major cities. Secondly, since Canada's "natural" population growth is below replacement rate (i.e. negative), it means the percentage of the population comprised of immigrants (and therefore, visible minorities) is steadily rising.
While it is true that there is a percentage of Candians that object to "interacial breeding", this group is largely comprised (though not entirely) of either (1) older Canadians (who are past breeding age anyway) and (2) Canadians outside major centers (whoose numbers are declining). Younger Canadians, especially second generation Canadians (who account for much of the population growth) are disproprotionately likely to marry outside their ethnic group.
The point: the way things are going, it is very likely that our grandchildren will grow up in a country where "mixed" people are at least the plurality of the population.
(like I said, it's a good thing)
In a generation or two everyone will be born retarded because they'll all have your mom as their great grandmother.
Yeah but if your mom is around then they will never have to be horny.
4:25>how many black men do you know that are solely attracted to white women? Though your intentions are good, it is higly unlikely that even in "1 or 2 generations" cultural stigmas and prefernces will turn around so drastically as to elicit a completely mixed multi-racial society. Your logic is decent, however your naiveté is what flaws the whole concept. Several generations have passed since the abolishment of slavery and yet there are quite a few people in certain areas who continue to degrade those of Afrcian American descent. Just because you are positive and may have faith in our country, it is much more dismal than you perceive it to be.
I didn't say that their wouldn't be racists in half a century; I'm not that optimistic. Of course there will always be people who are bigoted, or ignorant of other cultures. There is no doubt about that. I'm not expecting cultural stigmas to vanish completely.
But the numbers don't lie. The percentage of visible minorities in the population, and the percentage of Canadians of mixed ancestary (particularly second-generation Canadians) has risen significantly in our lifetimes. In half a century, if these trends hold, it going to be much more difficult to be a racist simply because it will be much harder to guess what any one person's background is.
I'll accept the criticism that I'm being optimistic or that I'm projecting things changing too quickly.
But I think it's a fair reading of trends that in fifty years or so, a much larger percentage of the population will be of mixed ancestary than is the case now, at least in the major cities, which, by that point, will hold the vast majority of the population in Canada.
I'm not saying that this will wipe out ignorance; but I believe that things are moving in the right direction.
can we stop using the word "breeding"? We're people, for god's sake.
1:21---> I've had enough of your humanocentrism! Speak for yourself when you say that "we're people, for god's sake" - because I most definately do not include myself amongst their number.
Baaaaaaad Baaaaaaaaad Assumption!
You're not a person?
1:47 was probably the one monkey in a million that eventually wrote a coherent sentance.
Of course, it appears that 1:47 was being dictated to by a sheep...not sure how that worked....
Monkeys and sheep shall be allies in the coming revolution to overthrow animal-kind's bipedal oppressors.
Down with 'making love'; up with breeding! Overthrow the hegemony of Big Sweater and their allies in the global banana cartel! Two legs bad! Prehensile tails and fluffy woolen sweaters good!
Power to the primates all over the world! Ewe, support the coming New World Order! Our agents have already infiltrated many of the humanist institutions. Get ready for a whole different kind of 'Human Zoo' after we're finished...
Nice to see that this thread has lightened up a bit
I wish your mom would lighten up a bit.
Allah Akbar! Allah Akbar!!!
Ahahahaha... THIS is some funny shit: http://www.goatse.ca/hello.jpg
Reminds me of the typical Western student.
not that again
2:03 PM white privilege? lol
7:40, I'm not sure what's wrong with you. I've seen you post that at least 3 times already. The fact that you still have the link and you still think about it enough to post it over again, is disturbing. Most of us do not share your taste in pornography. Please stop.
Goatse'ing unsuspecting people = hilarious.
I wish I had some of that white equality, since whenever I find a really good internship opportunity, it's only for minorities. Isn't that like racism but reversed?
it sure is. Why do we have to go from one extreme to another?
No. By many definitions of racism, it's about power. Since by and large, white people hold most of the power, "reverse racism" might be considered discrimination, but not racism.
Thanks! That makes me feel so much better. Calling it discrimination makes everything ok.
While I acknowledge there are systemic social factors involved in racial inequity, I still despise affirmative action programs... I'm a firm believer in equality of opportunity, not equality of condition. If you're a minority and you have superior qualifications for a job, then the job should go to you. If you're a white male and you have superior qualifications, the job should go to you.
Affirmative action programs are often promoted on encouraging "workplace diversity". One of the most scathingly truthful comments I've seen on the "diversity" angle was a sarcastic "because, it's obvious that the colour of a person's skin is the best indicator of how diverse their personality and skillset will be."
Right. Being a non-white person I have a bit of a problem with affirmative action and pretty much agree with 5:06, but it's around for a reason. Kind of like with a lot of things, it's a blessing with a curse. It's around to give marginalized, non-white minorities a more equal chance when most employers would typically choose a white person for the job, but can easily be abused by the minorities in question by them applying for the job and not really working as hard for the position, or just taking whatever position comes their way, when someone else (white or non-white) might need the position more than them. Furthermore, it also can make the assumption that non-white people are less capable than white people. I've heard stories of people in the US who've been accepted to universities or community colleges based on their last name sounding "Latino" or "black", when they didn't even apply for the school. I think I saw that on Dateline a couple of years ago. So I don't like it.
But it's conception is admirable. It's also around because for decades and decades, a lot of opportunities have been explicitly and implicitly held for only white people. I just think it's now a little outdated. Though the Republicans are the top dogs in the US and now Canada...
And yes, 10:49, white privilege. Look it up. It explains a lot of the stuff you see here in the Western (not the school) world that relates to race. Just check out the amount of non-white people you see in movies, commercials, TV shows, hell even on campus or at the mall compared to white people. Though maybe I'm only forced to notice all this because I'm not white...
...yeah, not to mention the total lack of non-white people you see in basketball, football and the music industry.
In North America, black people historically have frequently been given more jobs with which their bodies are being used, a lot of time serving, or they are entertaining but less professoinal jobs (funny, weren't we just talking about affirmative action?), hence the prevalence of black athletes and entertainers and lack of black people in professional roles in the media. There are some good exceptions where you will see representations in of black teachers (Boston Public was great), lawyers, doctors, etc., and I think the last decade has seen some change, but they're still a minority. And usually only shown as a majority if they follow stereotypes.
9:34, black people are athletes and in the olympics, "using their bodies", because they're GOOD at it. They weren't chosen for it, they're just good at it. And I believe any, ANY job should be up for grabs for the most qualified...if there's a white person who's more qualified than any coloured people who applied, why is it such a crime to hire them? And the same of course goes for the vice-versa. I don't think coloured people should use it as an excuse, and be reserved certain jobs. That's not fair, and neither is of course the reverse situation. It just divides us even more, which is BULL...if we're looking for equality, why distinguish people in that manner in the first place? Equality means EQUAL. Equal opportunity, equal chance. I'll give an example of a research internship at a really distinguished university that was only for aboriginals. This, of course, is because not many aboriginals make it through the school system (and yes, I do know people on a native reserve and I know what all of this entails), but if there are a hundred people who deserve that internship more than that person, why should they get it because of their ethnicity? They should have to work just as hard as everyone else.
-2:54
I actually really agree with you about equality, which is why I'm not all for affirmative action. Unfortunately racism certianly still exists, true equality is a complete fantasy, and in many cases white people will be privileged over non-white people. I just hope that this fantasy that has been told to our generation since childhood becomes reality through our efforts to maintain it.
But you know, the numbers would seem to suggest that black people are better at being quarterbacks or comedians than lawyers or doctors, or that black people are better at using their bodies than their minds. Hmm, I smell stereotypes...
Hmm, I smell your mom.
In response to earlier comments... In sociological terms, the term "minority" does not refer to number but to status. Those who are a majority are not necesssarily higher in number, but have power. Therefore, women are also considered a minority even though they are equal in number to men.
Yup.
Black people in the southern states are apparently, and have apparently always been, more populous that white people.
Native people were the majority in North America before the Europeans arrived.
Don't women make 51% of the world population? Or is that a generalization?
"Black people in the southern states are apparently, and have apparently always been, more populous that white people."
-Not exactly. In the pre-civil war south, blacks were about 1/3 of the population. That proportion is higher now, and blacks form the majority in some urban areas (e.g. Atlanta), but they are not quite a majority in the reigon. In states like florida and texas, hispanics are becoming the largest visible minority.
...
"Don't women make 51% of the world population? Or is that a generalization?"
That statistic is true, at least for developed countries. The number of men and women BORN is equal, but there are more women in the population because women live longer than men by a few years, on average. The vast majority of the elderly population is female, however.
I'm not sure if this is true in the developing world, though. In countries like Pakistan and China, female children are treated far worse than male children and are much more likely to be aborted (in China, at least), so the numbers may be reversed.
Hmm. Good to know.
Actually,on average more boys than girls are born annually BUT more male infants die so the numbers more or less balance out.As for there being 51% females--yes, it was a generalization.
Replace the 'actually' with 'also.' I wasn't contradicting 6:26.
As far as affirmative action goes: if you think of it in ideal world terms, it is unfair. But the point people who support it were trying to make is that we do not live in an ideal world. Women are still being paid less, and as seen through the recent Bell trials, can have to spend more than a decade fighting for equal pay, and for compensation for being paid less in the past. Affirmative action was put into place because it became apparent that people were more likely to hire/promote white males. So affirmative action was there to level the playing feild.
And to an extent, it does seem only fair. If you've been raised in middle class Toronto, you've probably had access to a decent education, a stable home environment, and had the free time to study, get good grades, and participate in extracurriculars, without worrying about working all the time to make ends meet, (a reality for a lot of people I know in Niagara). Essentially, you had an environment conducive to success. The same couldn't be said for a lot of Native reserves, that can have high rates of high school dropouts, as well as high suicide and alcohol rates. So is it so unfair to offer Natives advantages through affirmative action, if they haven't had the opportunity to be as 'qualified' as someone else?
^
Exactly. Many of the comments above just prove that people don't *really* appreciate the significance and subtlety of white privilege. It goes beyond obvious black and white (excuse the pun) scenarios.
Post a Comment
<< Home