Sleazy

Why is it OK for blacks to call whites a Cracker but if a white person calls a black person a ****** everyone jumps up and down? I am NOT a racist I just dont understand why its accepted

nocostporn

shut the fuck up peckerwood

__________________
CashTheChecks.com -coming soon-
"Exclusive sites for Exclusive Webmasters"
ICQ-119966868,add me first don't message

dirtyone

drunkdollars

You rent american history x tonight?

__________________
SIGS ARE GAY

98055668 icq

Joe Sixpack

"American History X" is a pile of shit. For a real movie about neo-nazi skinheads, watch "Romper Stomper"

drunkdollars

Funny. I remember seeing Romper Stomper in the theatre.
I also remember cops shaking everyone down who went to see it..

Now 10 years later I see its out on DVD I bought it and its fuckin boring.

Beware of buying movies you thought were good 10 years ago.

__________________
SIGS ARE GAY

98055668 icq

Sleazy

Peckerwood is that some sort of american slang? I cant say I have heard that saying before

chodadog

American History X was a great movie. Romper Stomper too. They're not really trying to get the same point across though.

chodadog

Oh, and Sleazy. This is why it's okay for a black person to call a white person whatever the fuck he wants:

http://www.stormfront.org/whitenat/racism.htm

by Thomas Jackson
There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism" in greater horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as part of the inevitable texture of American life. "Racism" is never shrugged off. For example, when a White Georgetown Law School student reported earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as White students, it set off a booming, national controversy about "racism." If the student had merely murdered someone he would have attracted far less attention and criticism.

Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach against it, America is said to be racked with it, but just what is racism?

Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the word. They usually define it as the belief that one's own ethnic stock is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are rooted in race. When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal more than this. Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a clue to understanding what Americans do mean. A peculiarly American meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are equal. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and anyone who questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil.

The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If blacks, for example, are equal to Whites in every way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is White racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state.

All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic. Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on White wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences. Thus, even if today's Whites can find in their hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's Whites must have oppressed them. If Whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must oppress them Unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be identified, then societal institutions must be racist. Or, since blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be millions of White people we do not know about, who are working day and night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion, an indictment of White people.

The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to believe that the only explanation for non-White failure is White racism, every time a non-White is poor, commits a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, White society stands accused of yet another act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-Whites is standing proof that White society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For precisely so long as non-Whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the same level as Whites, Whites will be, by definition, thwarting and oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be committed almost exclusively by White people. Indeed, a black congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black mayor of Detroit, have argued that only White people can be racist. Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she explained that all Whites are racist and that only Whites can be racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?

Although some blacks and liberal Whites concede that non-Whites can, perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-Whites have been forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of White oppression. What appears to be non-White racism is so understandable and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not an act is called racism depends on the race of the racist. What would surely be called racism when done by Whites is thought to be normal when done by anyone else. The reverse is also true.

Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost tedious to list them: When a White man kills a black man and uses the word "******" while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and the nation beats its collective breast; when members of the black Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of random Whites, the media are silent (see AR of March, 1991). College campuses forbid pejorative statements about non-Whites as "racist," but ignore scurrilous attacks on Whites.

At election time, if 60 percent of the White voters vote for a White candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black opponent, it is Whites who are accused of racial bias. There are 107 "historically black" colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be preserved in the name of diversity, but all historically White colleges must be forcibly integrated in the name of... the same thing. To resist would be racist.

"Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything that could be construed as an expression of White pride is a form of hatred. It is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect school instruction and driver's tests in their own languages, whereas for native Americans to ask them to learn English is racist.

Blatant anti-White prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is now the law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if practiced in favor of Whites, would be attacked as despicable favoritism.

All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club or association expressly for Whites is by definition racist. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) campaigns openly for black advantage but is a respected "civil rights" organization. The National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races, but is said to be viciously racist.

At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action have set up student unions for Whites, analogous to those for blacks, Hispanics, etc, and have been roundly condemned as racists. Recently, when the White students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found themselves to be a minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club like the ones that non-Whites have. They were turned down in horror. Indeed, in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a White enclave but whose members simply happen all to be White is branded as racist.

Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the asymmetric quality of American racism is "celebration of diversity." It has begun to dawn on a few people that "diversity" is always achieved at the expense of Whites (and sometimes men), and never the other way around. No one proposes that Howard University be made more diverse by admitting Whites, Hispanics, or Asians. No one ever suggests that National Hispanic University in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the diversity of having non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the Black Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from a lack of diversity. Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to celebrate homogeneity. And yet any all-White group - a company, a town, a school, a club, a neighborhood - is thought to suffer from a crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied as quickly as possible. Only when Whites have been reduced to a minority has "diversity" been achieved.

Let us put it bluntly: To "celebrate" or "embrace" diversity, as we are so often asked to do, is no different from deploring an excess of Whites. In fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess of Whites. Our current immigration policies are structured so that approximately 90 percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are non-White. The several million illegal immigrants that enter the country every year are virtually all non-White. It would be racist not to be grateful for this laudable contribution to "diversity." It is, of course, only White nations that are called upon to practice this kind of "diversity." It is almost criminal to imagine a nation of any other race countenancing blatant dispossession of this kind.

chodadog

What if the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated citizens across the border into Mexico? Could anyone be fooled into thinking that Mexico was being "culturally enriched?" What if the state of Chihuahua were losing its majority population to poor Whites who demanded that schools be taught in English, who insisted on celebrating the Fourth of July, who demanded the right to vote even if they weren't citizens, who clamored for "affirmative action" in jobs and schooling?

Would Mexico - or any other non-White nation - tolerate this kind of cultural and demographic depredation? Of course not. Yet White Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians entering their country as a priceless cultural gift. They are supposed to "celebrate" their own loss of influence, their own dwindling numbers, their own dispossession, for to do otherwise would be hopelessly racist.

There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non- Whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of "hating" another group. Blacks can join "civil rights" groups and Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots and hate mongers. They can agitate openly for racial preferences that can come only at the expense of whites. They can demand preferential treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are "anti-white."

Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject racial policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that they prefer the company of their own kind, that they wish to be left alone to enjoy the fruits of their European heritage, they are irredeemably wicked and hateful.

Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their own kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct from those of the whole, and to work openly for group advantage. None of this is thought to be racist. At the same time, whites must also champion the racial interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice their own future on the altar of "diversity" and cooperate in their own dispossession. They are to encourage, even to subsidize, the displacement of a European people and culture by alien peoples and cultures. To put it in the simplest possible terms, White people are cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit racial and cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism.

Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United States is perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to love one's people and to hope that it should flourish. Filipinos and El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished to discover that simply by setting foot in the United States they are entitled to affirmative action preferences over native-born whites, but can they be blamed for accepting them? Is it surprising that they should want their languages, their cultures, their brothers and sisters to take possession and put their mark indelibly on the land? If the once-great people of a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and is prepared to hand over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for it, why should Mexicans and Cambodians complain?

No, it is the White enterprise in the United States that is unnatural, unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites have let themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to dispossession, much less to work for their own interests. Never in the history of the world has a dominant people thrown open the gates to strangers, and poured out its wealth to aliens. Never before has a people been fooled into thinking that there was virtue or nobility in surrendering its heritage, and giving away to others its place in history. Of all the races in America, only whites have been tricked into thinking that a preference for one's own kind is racism. Only whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow "hatred" of others. All healthy people prefer the company of their own kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred. All men love their families more than their neighbors, but this does not mean that they hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial family need bear no ill will towards non-whites. They only wish to be left alone to participate in the unfolding of their racial and cultural destinies.

What whites in America are being asked to do is therefore utterly unnatural. They are being asked to devote themselves to the interests of other races and to ignore the interests of their own. This is like asking a man to forsake his own children and love the children of his neighbors, since to do otherwise would be "racist."

What then, is "racism?" It is considerably more than any dictionary is likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to official policies of racial preference for non-whites. It is any preference by whites for their own people and culture. It is any resistance by whites to the idea of becoming a minority people. It is any unwillingness to be pushed aside. It is, in short, any of the normal aspirations of people-hood that have defined nations since the beginning of history - but only so long as the aspirations are those of whites.

Joe Sixpack

No, but they're both films about neo-nazi skinheads.

One is an independent film and one is a Hollywood product. And it shows.

Hustlin Entertainment

So many things to be taught and so many things to be learned.

Prowler

SkinHeads not a fashon its a way of life...

both those movies were GAY...try suburbia filmed in the 80s in LA

stangster

Does cracker offend you?

Sleazy

No the word cracker does not offend me at all. why?

chodadog

That's besides the point. The word ****** may not offend some black people, but it's still a racist comment, just as cracker. Difference is, a white person is looked down upon for using the word ******, while a black person can use the word cracker like any other word.

It's called a double standard, and it extends to nearly every single issue that has anything to do with the colour of your skin.

drumsicle

While there are no doubt societal double standards regarding race, I hardly think it is considered acceptable to use the term cracker.

I've been around black people all of my life and can't recall a single incident where I've heard it used, even among those I didn't get along with. I've had fist fights with black guys three times, and damn near fist fights a couple more times and still, "cracker" and "******" weren't used.

chodadog

I never implied that it's use was prevalent, only that when it is used, it's not frowned upon. It's okay for minorities to use racial slander towards white people. How many black people have been thrown in jail for hate crimes towards white people?

It's okay for a black person to call me a cracker, 'cause apparently, i'm still oppressing him.

Frank W

Very interesting article. But I wonder whether the author neglects to analyze the impact that cultural values play on individual behavior and how this affects both external perception and internal politics. If the analysis was performed at this level maybe the result would not be categorical groupings of 1 "race" /
ethnicity = 1 behavioral grouping. Maybe the result would be that within any one "race" or whatever grouping, there would be a continuum of behaviors/value systems. Middle and upper class whites, blacks, etc probably have different life outlooks and work ethics than working class or lower class members of their "race".

If the latter was true then maybe the issue is more about class than "race"? The pathologies of violent crime, welfare dependence, etc is distributed more on the lower end of the class spectrum. The American value system prizes hard work, creativity, and individual responsibility. My guess would be that these traits are not the exclusive province of any one "racial" or ethnic group but are distributed amongst groups in varying degrees. Some groups may have larger concentrations of certain traits along this spectrum but this does not in anyway eliminate the fact that the distribution exists.

Unfortunately, many African-American "leaders" get a lot of mileage from these discrepancies to substantiate their claim that black Americans need more welfare, more affirmative action, and more subsidies. By playing up the pathologies facing some minorities in this country, many minority "leaders" end up perpetuating [i'm sure unconsciously] negative perceptions of their "race" held by the mainstream. Indeed, once the "problems" faced by blacks disappear, "race leaders" like Jackson and Sharpton will be out of a job! This is a source of "racism" that was neglected in the article. Black pathologies may [with enough political will and a balanced look at black economic achievement] be on the way to extinction but non-nuanced media attention and self-serving race politics seem hell bent on keeping it alive.

__________________
"If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us." -- Herman Hesse

TheFLY

Just pretend that you aren't white and nobody will call you a cracker. LOL

Racism threads on GFY disturb me -- even if they are jokes I think all the threads should be locked.

chodadog

I agree. The article did over simplify things somewhat. The fact still remains though. What's okay for a black person, or a hispanic person to do, is frowned upon by the people who are so (hyocritically) pro-equality.

But yes, you raise very interesting points.

missnglnk

It all boils down to this, if the other person is looking to offend, and you're looking to be offended, then its racist.

I've heard whites call other whites crackers, blacks call other blacks ******s, <insert any other race here> call <insert race here> <insert word thought to be offensive here>, and it's all a joke.

There may be other cases where one person thinks the word has no meaning any more and uses it against a person looking to be offended, I don't know what to do in this situation but to call the offended person ignorant and racist, if it's the first offense, just simply point out that you don't like the context that word is being used in and call it a day, if it comes up again, then I guess you can bitch and moan if it clearly wasn't a mistake.

I dunno, I don't give a flying fuck about colors, nationalities, or anything else that sets people apart on an application.

__________________
--
cat: .signature: No such file or directory

fnet

Both are obviously disrespectful.

This is a question of history and of a new people trying to emerge as collectively powerful, despite having had their respective cultures cuisinarted. Black people who are the descendants of slaves have a tangled cultural lineage. This and historical racism leave a gap that makes racial identification stronger. Justice isn't the issue.

You can call a Kenyan a ******, and he may look at you like you called him a long necked polka-dotted sneezleberry- i.e., what the fuck is wrong with you? He could also be puzzled and alienated when American blacks call him brotha.

A weirder thing is that Jamaican blacks usually don't mesh with American black solidarity even though they have a slave history.
Clean integration says a lot about what's going on. In that respect, we failed here. Chain gangs, private prison labor, and the urban planning of two generations back shout ****** like nothing else.

That said, I'm not black, nor do I particularly care about American black people any more than I care anybody else. Every people in history has gotten raped, murdered, sacked and sold by somebody else. That's the cycle.

For a stronger taste of the same idea you're sensing, try living on Oahu for a few months.

Fuckin' haole.

__________________
the sound of one hand googlewhacking

nocostporn

whats with you peckerwoods? Just take your verbal lashings like good little saltine crackers and there won't be a problem... Stop breaking out the literature to prove how much of a peckerwood you AREN'T

__________________
CashTheChecks.com -coming soon-
"Exclusive sites for Exclusive Webmasters"
ICQ-119966868,add me first don't message

High Quality

American History X was not so good. Mainly because it portrayed ALL skinheads as racist neo-nazis...when on the contrary, the skinhead movement started in England as an anti-racist group. Ignorant movie makers make me want to fuck them up skinhead style Additionally, American History X made a real good case FOR racism. The fundamental issue of course is the individual. Statistically blacks are just as the movie said - dumber, more crime prone, more economically challenged, etc....however it is the PREJUDICE against blacks that is really the issue. Every person, be he black or whatever needs to be judged on their INDIVIDUAL merit, not PRE-judged based on their skin color or ethnicity.

HQ

__________________

RecurCash.com - Averaging $38/sale with 60% revshare in the first 4 months alone!

Convert your TEEN traffic today @ better than 1:500 guaranteed. ICQ me: 18287590!

misty3k

I seem to remember that the term "cracker" had nothing to do with the race of an individual. It was a term used to describe people who were from Georgia, iirc. Whether that is still true, today, I'm not entirely sure.

the "n" word on the other hand was and is used exclusively (by certain people) as a racial slur.

Now, "peckerwood", I believe that IS a racial slur meant to be directed toward white men. Which is why nocostporn used it in this thread. I'm not sure what it means, but I think it refers to the size of a white guys cock, and/or his virulity.

just throwin in

__________________
misty3k
World O'Crap

chodadog

American History X never suggested that all skinheads were racists. All the skinheads in that movie, were racists. And the movie was about racists. Did you want a non-racist skinhead to make a cameo appearance to clarify?

Frank W

Good point. Please correct me if I'm misinformed, didn't the skinhead music movement arise from oi music which is an outgrowth of ska which derives from Jamaican [read: black] music? Wasn't it only later in the evolution of the skinhead movement that a breakaway group embraced the whole racialist National Front ideology?

__________________
"If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us." -- Herman Hesse

Frank W

Fnet, very informative post. Very interesting note re Jamaicans and other West Indians. Based on census and other demographic sources, among blacks in America, this subgroup [along with immigrants directly out of continental Africa] tend to do better in terms of income mobility. Maybe this is owing to the fact that they immigrated to the US [excepting Mexican/Central American immigrants--their percentage of working class/unskilled labor is higher because of the proximity of the border as opposed to boarding a plane and qualifying for a visa] and had middle class values/skills when they came in? Or is this due to the fact that in the West Indies, slaves so vastly outnumbered whites that they were allowed to own some property and engage in business?

__________________
"If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us." -- Herman Hesse

chodadog

Ska definetley did arise from Jamacian music, but oi is definetley inspired by raw punk. Nothing Ska about it!

SleazyDream

Please know this idiot who calls himself 'Sleazy" isn't me.

__________________
This dog, is dog, a dog, good dog, way dog, to dog, keep dog, an dog, idiot dog, busy dog, for dog, 20 dog, seconds dog!

Now read without the word dog.

Frank W

Thanks for setting the info straight. It did seem quite a leap from ska to oi.

__________________
"If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us." -- Herman Hesse

chodadog

But you're both so alike. (Read: idiot)

Prowler

Oi SkinHeads came from the white working class of Europe....The music is actually Rock And Roll or 77 punk preaching about the working class..This has nothing to do with Ska.

The only correct thing about history X is the prison system part.
In the California prison system these white trash peckerwoods wear nazi symbols but their meaning is very different than skinheads, shinheads are proud of their race and land they also "Most" dont use drugs and blah blah blah....

Peckerwoods use it as a rebel white trash sign like the confederate flag, while they transact with they other races..

Skinheads and peckerwoods dont get along because of this.

And dont let cracker or other words get you down..Most all blacks hate whites..shit id hate them too if i was a slave and had no rights up untill 40 years ago...and if you mother fuckers think im wrong and you think blackie forgives whitey then lets go to Oakland and Compton at 2:00 AM i just got back from Oakland
it sucked ass.

SykkBoy

chill out you fucking crackers....

whites hate blacks because they have bigger cocks...
everything is a penis issue....

__________________
Support my new movie “The Second Coming”

Hashishan

****** ****** ****** ****** ******

cracker cracker cracker cracker cracker

****** ****** ****** ****** ******

cracker cracker cracker cracker cracker

yada yada yada yada yada

as i recall from my schooling (back in the day before 4th Division started editing public school textbooks in the United States), slavery was rampant in Africa before any "crackers" brought any "******s" over the ocean. in fact, as i recall it, the "******s" got traded to "cracker" slave traders by other "******s" in exchange for not much of anything, much the same way that "crackers" traded the "forest ******s" out of their land in North America. you know why the "******s" traded the other "******s"? because the slave "******s" skin was of a lighter shade

all you "******s" can take your "racism" shit and shove it up your ass. this "cracker" is not of a mind to listen

here is a mind boggler for you...if somebody says "******" in a general sense and you get offended, does that make him a racist or is it really that you are afraid he is right?

"******" used to be a term for dark-skinned people, a mutilation of the spanish word "negro" by the overly religious inbred hicks that are our forefathers

these days it has mostly lost that meaning

****** isnt a skin color, its a state of mind

if the word ****** offends you, then chances are...you are a ******

you fucking ******

(to my black friends on the net and elsewhere: y'all ain't ******s, y'all just got reall good suntans )

nocostporn

ahaha you said forest ******... You are for sure a peckerwood!

__________________
CashTheChecks.com -coming soon-
"Exclusive sites for Exclusive Webmasters"
ICQ-119966868,add me first don't message

Hashishan

yes i am grew up dirt poor living on farms, stepdad was a farm hand. quite often the only food we had was polk greens, morels, squirrel, deer, and rabbit. made most of our money some years by cutting what are called "pecker poles" for the local palette mill. a "pecker pole" is a pine tree with a diameter between 6 inches and 1 foot. depending on how many orders the palette company had, they would pay between 50 cents and 2 dollars a pole. it is hard work, but you do what you have to. i can remember going out with the old bastard to cut down pecker poles in the summer, sweating my ass off, 8 years old swinging a short machete trimming branches off pecker poles.

****** was a pretty common word where i grew up, not because there were a lot of blacks, but for some reason backwoods hillbillies love the word. i joined the navy at age 18 and was surprised by the fact that black people werent all welfare cases. then i made freinds with a few, and ended up loaning my bronco II to one guy, he brought it back missing parts. found out later his roomate at his apartment off base had the same model and all that ****** wanted to do was steal my parts. another ****** that i thought was a friend stole my laptop computer, a tandy 1500 hd laptop, back in 1992 when an XT laptop was still top-of-the-line

there are black people, and there are ******s

i can understand that some blacks grow up in areas of extreme racism and get more than a little pissed off. so how much of that is my doing? zero.

black people, i admire you for having the balls to stand up and be job-having responsible people in a society which used to consider you as personal property, in an atmosphere where pintless racial hatred still exists to some extent

******s, FUCK OFF

klik

The United Negro College Fund will still accept donations from white people every day..

Yet, black people will get all offended, if we call them a negro.

kmanrox

why would 'cracker' be offending... it stems from what the slaves called their masters due to the 'cracking the whip' they were used to.... anyd afro-american that calls you a cracker is putting himself down...

i had a discussion with Forrest and Damon Whittacker (sp?) regarding this... interesting stuff nonetheless...

__________________
Crypto HODLr
Crypto mining
Angel investor

smoke

here's my 2 cents...

Ive lived my whole life in the bay area about 10 minutes south of oakland. I was raised with blacks, latins and whites. I myself am white. The word "nigga" is used pretty loosely around here and Ive never seen an altercation over it. Ive also never heard a black call a white a cracker or peckerwood, the term white boy is much more common.

I disagree that most blacks hate whites, I think it depends on how your raised. I grew up in a blue collar neiborhood with all different races. Color was never an issue, the bottom line was that life was hard no matter who you were.

I see alot of emphasis on black and white. I think the black and white thing is old. Now days people arnt segregated based upon skin color, there segregated based upon class. Whether it be low, middle or high. Regardless of your race if your low or middle class your all in the same boat.

Killerelf

I prefer peckerwood redneck honkey cracker motherfucker

__________________
I am not allowed to tell you anything that I feel like telling you

satansbitch

[QUOTE]Originally posted by kmanrox
[B]why would 'cracker' be offending... it stems from what the slaves called their masters due to the 'cracking the whip' they were used to.... anyd afro-american that calls you a cracker is putting himself down...

i'm unsure as to wiether "offending" is the right word to use.... someone who is not racist may feel defensive to this title and hence feel they now have to explain themselves.

Scootermuze

Try establishing a United White College Fund and watch the feathers fly...

PornoDoggy

Oh, shit. Reminds me of the time I watched Alices Resturaunt about 15 years after it was in the theaters. It was fucking embarassing to think I really thought that was a great movie.

MrBrian

was just watching espn classic and they were playing "white men cant jump" during the intermission some black ball player said "it wasnt until after this movie that white players started playing up to the level of black players"

lol

what if a white guy would of said something like that...

__________________
ICQ #971-2561

Aussie Rebel

I wonder if there will ever be white man as head of the N.A.A.C.P

LoveAsianChicks

What bothers me about black people, is they seem to think the world owes them something just because they are black.
Every interview with a rap star and the fuck needs to mention he's black and how tough it is cause he's a black.
Why do they need to draw attention to their race every chance they get to speak? We can all see they are black but they need to mention it.

Just once I want to see a white person win an award and say
"I'm white, I won this award for all the white people out there, thankyou"

Aussie Rebel

So true

TheFLY

Leave this shit to the academics...

These threads aren't healthy.