There's a difference between white pride and ethnic pride. A lot of people seem to miss it.
Along with that, a lot of people like to say 'nobody who is white has ever faced discrimination'. This is false on many levels: 1) You're erasing the LGBTQ white people and 2) You're erasing the fact that the Irish and sometimes the Italians are still discriminated against. And the fact that they were badly discriminated against back in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Hell, it was even considered oppression at the time (that icky word people like to over-define). 3) You're also ignoring the disabled white folks. Being white doesn't protect you from everyfuckingthing.
So, yeah. People need to learn the differences. Small, but important differences.
No white person has ever faced systematic discrimination for that reason in the United States. Not one. White people may face persecution for other reasons; they are not victims of racism. Period.
You'll note I never once said it was either systematic or institutionalized. Nor did I say racism. I said prejudice/discrimination for a reason. It doesn't have to be systematic or institutionalized to count under the discrimination banner. Just being turned away from multiple places for being Italian is enough to be discrimination.
Though, of course, not for being white.
At this point you're just saying superfluous things.
/ hammering home the fundamental point. White people do not and have never faced racial discrimination in the US. People considered non-white (Irish, Italian, Finnish) certainly have, and some white people have faced discrimination for other reason, but not because they were white.
It becomes superfluous when you're talking over me about something I was never saying in the first place. I never once said that they were discriminated against
for being white I said they were white
and discriminated against for being Italian/Irish/Whathaveyou. Everyone else seemed to get that except for you. The original argument was that nobody who is white has
ever faced discrimination. That was it. There was no 'for being white' in that sentence and there never was.
So knock it off.
Ah yes the ol' 'if you're just nice to the people who are oppressing you then soon enough he will change his ways and you will no longer be oppressed!' thing.
Alternatively: If two groups have a disagreement the one that merely shouts and acts agressively at the other is not likely to convert anyone to their cause, while the group that acts calm and extends the olive branch just might. Even if it is slow, even if only few people learn to respect the other group or join the other side of view it is still progress.
I mean that comic might be about opression but it might as well be about wether or not you put the cheese or cucumber on the top of sandwich. If group A only shouts about how their view is the only TRUE view it is unlikely to convert the other side. (Though judging from the fact that the other side starts with being in the minority the comic might be particularly about opression. Otherwise it could have started with two similarly sized groups. Or maybe that would have required too much drawing.)
I have seen the cartoon in question posted with a description that mentions oppression (insert your flavor of oppression here I guess) and how they always see people bitch and shout at their oppressors and mentioning that they're fighting hate with hate, etc., So that was what I was using.
