Anti-white Prejudice - does it exist?

[Emilie Jolie]

1 minute ago, Zona said:

It does get tiring when you are white to be told you are racist and xenophobic when we are mostly the opposite. In general, we have been way more open to other races and ethnicities and diversity as a whole.

It must be tiring to be told you are a racist, yes, but the second part of this quote is much more debatable - we, or at least those we vote for, have been organising coups, distabilizing countries abroad (some we even smashed to smithereens), discriminate against them when they land in our shores, so even if we're inviting our Black neighbours for tea, somehow it doesn't quite compare. We seemingly still have issues when they ask to be treated equally. Perhaps a lot of the anti-white prejudice comes from these sorts of actions? Something to ponder, perhaps.

[Emilie Jolie]

8 minutes ago, homecoming said:

I had always assumed that those tick-boxes were optional, and for survey purposes. They cannot be to let anyone get a leg up. If that was the case, how come I have spent my life ticking them, but never had any special treatment?

They don't give any leg-up. They're just for stats purposes.

[Zona]

1 minute ago, Emilie Jolie said:

we, or at least those we vote for, have been organising coups, distabilizing countries abroad (some we even smashed to smithereens), discriminate against them when they land in our shores, so even if we're inviting our Black neighbours for tea, somehow it doesn't quite compare. We seemingly still have issues when they ask to be treated equally. Perhaps a lot of the anti-white prejudice comes from these sorts of actions? Something to ponder, perhaps.

And no other races or ethnicities have been guilty of such things? That's what makes it racist, by claiming only whites are guilty of such shameful actions. Perhaps our technology made us more effective at being belligerents historically, but all human beings are basically selfish by nature and are capable of such acts. That's why having a rock solid constitution that limits the power of government and protects freedom and liberty is so critical.

[homecoming]

10 minutes ago, Zona said:

And no other races or ethnicities have been guilty of such things? That's what makes it racist, by claiming only whites are guilty of such shameful actions. Perhaps our technology made us more effective at being belligerents historically, but all human beings are basically selfish by nature and are capable of such acts. That's why having a rock solid constitution that limits the power of government and protects freedom and liberty is so critical.

There has been no disputing that other races are capable of widespread harmful actions. 

The difference is that the actions of white people have shaped the entire world: attitudes, beliefs, social and racial hierachies, media imagery, pay gaps, education opportunities, attractiveness levels, linguistics, consumerism, globalism, the economy, etc etc etc

Edited June 14, 2020 by homecoming

[BC1980]

Of course someone can be racist against a white person. The social justice idea (from academia) that racism can only exist within the context of institutional power is wrong and toxic for civil society. You might get more than you bargain for by changing the definition of racism to include institutional power. I guess that means at historically black colleges, white people are incapable of racism. 

[Weezy1973]

48 minutes ago, Emilie Jolie said:

These hypotheticals are off the charts, @Weezy1973!  🤪  They are too loaded, I think. I don't know any situation such as this in real life, so if you can point me to an actual school or city in the western world where the whole teaching body / institutional power is  made up of minorities who have implemented specific anti-white rules, I'd be happy to revise my definition.  

Fair enough, I think my point is though that people operate within the systems they’re living in, so in the cafeteria or the gym  of a predominantly black school, a white person may experience racism as the black students hold the power. 
 

And just also to point out that systemic racism doesn’t need policies that are specifically anti-black to exist. 

[NuevoYorko]

53 minutes ago, Weezy1973 said:

Not taking it as argumentative as mine was more of a hypothetical anyways. If most of the teaching body were black or most of the people in power in the city were black, would that make a difference?

It also depends on what level you’re talking. In a school for example, even if the teachers are white, if the student body is mostly black, a white kid could have racism directed towards him by the other students (I.e. the students with the power in that particular system).

If the entire power structure  (federal government, state, local, law enforcement, all the way down to administration and teachers of the school) were dominated by a particular race, and members of another race or races were  systematically impeded from disrupting this paradigm,  that is racism.  In the USA, UK and the colonized world, the center of power is not in the hands of black or brown skinned people.  

Racism is incorrectly conflated with "prejudice" in this thread and elsewhere.  They often go hand in hand (I don't think it's possible to be racist without prejudice)  but unlike racism,  being prejudiced is the same emotional / intellectual action whether it's against another race, religion, nationality, body type, gender.  

[homecoming]

2 hours ago, Libby1 said:

It's quite some time since I read it, so I took another look.  The Jay Report did not go as far as to use the phrase "white trash" but it does refer to information it received that the police regarded the girls as "undesirables" who were not worth police time.  There's quite a bit in other parts of the report outlining specific incidents where the girls were seen as culpable for the abuse.  One of the most notorious being the example where a 12 year old was found in a derelict house with one other child and a group of adult males.  The child was arrested for being drunk and disorderly, but the men were released without charge.   The concerns about being accused of racism were found not so much among the police as among other agencies (particularly Councillors).

https://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/279/independent-inquiry-into-child-sexual-exploitation-in-rotherham

Part 5 of the Report outlines some of the children's own stories and failings of the police in protecting those girls.   Part 10 goes into more depth, referring to other research finding that the police tended to regard missing (from children's homes) girls as deviant, promiscuous and a waste of their time.

The fears about being seen as racist are referred to in part 11 and relate more to other agencies' involvement.  Staff at the Risky Business project reported that they were told not to make reference to the ethnicity of alleged perpetrators...but it's really in the interviews with Councillors that the issue of racial sensitivities (and the role they played) is touched upon. 

(They) believed that by opening up these issues they could be 'giving oxygen' to racist perspectives that might in turn attract extremist political groups and threaten community cohesion. To some extent this concern was valid, with the apparent targeting of the town by groups such as the English Defence League

As I recall the girls' own stories, and details of their experiences with the police, were published in more detail by the Times.  Reporter Andrew Norfolk worked tirelessly on this story.  It was his work that ultimately led to the Jay Report being instructed...but in interviews he's revealed that he was very reluctant to take it on, as it seemed like a dream story for the far right.  Also, he received a lot of hate mail.  

I don't think this was a case of political correctness gone mad.  I think it was a case of politics playing out as they generally do.  Here's an account in the Independent from one of the Rotherham girls.  She talks about racism in its various forms, and it's very clear that as far as she's concerned the treatment she and other girls (who yes, were of various ethnicities and not just white) received was a form of racism.  I suggest that the systems which were supposed to protect girls like this were more interested in protecting themselves (from allegations of racism, for example) - and that a byproduct of that was that they also protected the abusers.  Racial factors played a primary role in that, and therefore I'd maintain that this certainly was an example of systemic racism.

 https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-deal-racism-hate-crime-rotherham-grooming-gang-child-sex-abuse-islamophobia-definition-a8666416.html

Going by your definition of systemic racism, what laws in the UK do you believe discriminate against black or brown Brits?

 

Interesting response, I will look over it and respond more later. 

In reference to the part in bold, of course there are not any overt laws that directly oppress PoC, as that would be wrong. Of course there are countless diversity programmes, etc - it is the attitudes of those in power that causes a lot of these issues, not written laws or diversity workshops. 

It's not my definition, I am just going by what I have read over the past few years. It's 'a' definition, not 'mine'. Sorry, I'm just trying to make it clear, because I have been misquoted before. 

This is also just one case, though - I'm not even denying that this is terrible and heinous, but the fact stands that this isn't a historical and contemporary issue, nor has it impacted the way white girls are seen around the world, or reflected in the media, or through modelling and fashion, or represented at prestigious universities. 

Also seems like a touch of classism, with the 'undesirables' thing - working class people do suffer a lot, I'm just not sure that this is systemic racism. Race has obviously played a part, but not sure it's a systemic issue.

 

[Emilie Jolie]

59 minutes ago, Zona said:

And no other races or ethnicities have been guilty of such things? That's what makes it racist, by claiming only whites are guilty of such shameful actions. Perhaps our technology made us more effective at being belligerents historically, but all human beings are basically selfish by nature and are capable of such acts. That's why having a rock solid constitution that limits the power of government and protects freedom and liberty is so critical.

I agree in part and yes, other countries have. But look at what we have done / are still doing (we is doing very heavy lifting here admittedly - my parents would not like me using we here so liberally, let me tell you 😬  🥴) in the last 70 years alone. 2 billion people speak English worldwide - coincidence? Nope, colonialism and imperialism. Many minority people are bilingual at a minimum, often polyglot. Us? Not so much (not many of us at least - I know the UK system). I think some of us are selfish and greedy, true, but I'm one of those 'glass half full' people who want to see the best in human nature - against all logic, granted 

There must be a middle ground - right? So how do we meet each other half-way?

 

[Ellener]

Look at this from Southern Poverty Law Center:

Founded by David Duke in 1975, the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan has attempted to put a "kinder, gentler" face on the Klan, courting media attention and attempting to portray itself as a modern "white civil rights" organization. 

You can compare organisations and see where there is racism and or hatred or prejudice,  and no, in comparison Black Lives Matter organisation is not a 'hate group'. The two groups are antithetical, with BLM pledging to support all other marginalised groups of the society whilst KKKK or the newer LWKKKK have an agenda of intentionally excluding them.

This 'liberals have no tolerance for the truth' is exactly what the LWKKKK put on their fliers though, and really that's what I'm responding to. 

I don't care if I'm become a minority in the future because the America we are continuing to create will include, represent and protect me.

 

 

 

Edited June 17, 2020 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Remove reference to deleted personal attack.

[Emilie Jolie]

2 hours ago, pepperbird said:

If one looks at it from the macro view, it's going to be very difficult to change. I can only speak for myself, but the micro changes can add up, and a big part of that is actually bringing people together.

It might sound silly,  but I've seen it happen, albeit on a small scale. When people can actually meet and get to know each other on a personal level the fears and assumptions often go away. As an individual, I can do very little to create societal change, but I can do what i can in my own little world.

I missed that, sorry pepperbird. Love this post 🥰

[Ellener]

4 hours ago, pepperbird said:

Everyone is capable of racism and discrimination, and I don't care who you (general) are.

Yes, ethnocentrism is in and of itself: it is somewhat difficult for us to recognize that the value which we attribute to our own civilization is due to the fact that we participate in this civilization, and that it has been controlling all our actions from the time of our birth. ( Franz Boaz )

The dialectic which goes back and forth about so many issues these days between two polar arguments contains a huge subtext of 'we all know what they're like...' 

[pepperbird]

2 hours ago, Emilie Jolie said:

I find it interesting that you consider this an extra leg up, but you don't consider being white in the first place to not have given you any sort of leg up? It did me. I've found being white to be a breeze compared to any other minority, to be honest, especially in my education.

I guess I didn't word it very well.
This is at the part of the process where they're just looking at admission based upon academic achievement. Grades. Unless asked, there would be no way for the admissions board to know what race an individual is when they review the applications, unless someone chose to self identify.

[Libby1]

1 hour ago, homecoming said:

Also seems like a touch of classism, with the 'undesirables' thing - working class people do suffer a lot, I'm just not sure that this is systemic racism. Race has obviously played a part, but not sure it's a systemic issue.

 

I think perhaps a big problem lies with the phrase "white privilege" and the resentment it has caused.  Kenan Malick has an interesting commentary about that in the Guardian today.  I won't link, due to the time lag, but he says

More than half of those killed by US police are white and while, proportionately, police killings of African Americans have fallen in recent years, that of white people has sharply risen. Some analyses suggest that the best predictor of police killings is not race but income levels – the poorer you are, the more likely you are to be killed. Other studies have shown that the startlingly high prison numbers in America are better explained by class than by race and that “mass incarceration is primarily about the systematic management of the lower classes, regardless of race”

We commonly use phrases like "white privilege" and "male privilege" to encourage members of certain groups to consider the disadvantages people from other groups face that they themselves don't have to deal with.  So a white homeless guy might ask "where's my privilege exactly?" and might get an answer along the lines of "nobody's denying your struggle, but you don't have the additional disadvantage that being black would probably confer."  But in reality there might be little discernable difference (in terms of hardship, difficulties, stigma, police harassment and violence faced) between him and the homeless black guy sitting a few doors away from him.   Where there is a difference is that if the black guy gets killed by the police, potentially it's going to result in cities being set on fire.  But if the homeless white guy gets killed by police, well...maybe a few people will make a show of demonstrating, but a guy in that situation isn't backed up by a movement.  A few celebrities and journalists might dutifully post some angry tweets about it to show that they aren't just focused on black lives mattering...but a situation like that isn't going to (literally) set cities on fire.

Terms like white privilege and male privilege imply a certain degree of power conferred on a person courtesy of their colour or gender.  Psychologically, people feel more righteous about attacking somebody who they perceive as having power.  Punching up, so to speak.  And I think that's one of the problems created by terms like White Privilege.  They encourage people to feel like "it's okay to punch this person.  They have white privilege.  They're powerful.  I'd be punching up..."  Not necessarily the case.

[Ellener]

Where are all these US cities on fire? I realise the news outlets keep showing a handful of burning building images but there's a big distinction between a protest and a riot.

 

 

[NuevoYorko]

1 hour ago, Libby1 said:

I think perhaps a big problem lies with the phrase "white privilege" and the resentment it has caused.  Kenan Malick has an interesting commentary about that in the Guardian today.  I won't link, due to the time lag, but he says

More than half of those killed by US police are white and while, proportionately, police killings of African Americans have fallen in recent years, that of white people has sharply risen. Some analyses suggest that the best predictor of police killings is not race but income levels – the poorer you are, the more likely you are to be killed. Other studies have shown that the startlingly high prison numbers in America are better explained by class than by race and that “mass incarceration is primarily about the systematic management of the lower classes, regardless of race”

 

A black person in America is more than 3 times more likely to be killed by police than a white person.   No matter how many ways you want to look at statistics and circumstances,  this is a fact.   

Quote

We commonly use phrases like "white privilege" and "male privilege" to encourage members of certain groups to consider the disadvantages people from other groups face that they themselves don't have to deal with.  So a white homeless guy might ask "where's my privilege exactly?" and might get an answer along the lines of "nobody's denying your struggle, but you don't have the additional disadvantage that being black would probably confer."  But in reality there might be little discernable difference (in terms of hardship, difficulties, stigma, police harassment and violence faced) between him and the homeless black guy sitting a few doors away from him.   Where there is a difference is that if the black guy gets killed by the police, potentially it's going to result in cities being set on fire.  But if the homeless white guy gets killed by police, well...maybe a few people will make a show of demonstrating, but a guy in that situation isn't backed up by a movement.  A few celebrities and journalists might dutifully post some angry tweets about it to show that they aren't just focused on black lives mattering...but a situation like that isn't going to (literally) set cities on fire.

Do you use "white privilege" and "male privilege" to encourage others to consider something?  I don't; I think they're the simplest terms with which to identify things that exists.

A white male in America comes into the world with a bit of a head start next to others with exactly the same advantages / disadvantages that he has.

I don't know of any cities being set on fire because of BLM.  Many BLM protests have been joined, if not co-opted by other groups and individuals who are on board to express rage or whatever of their own.  Some of it, here in the US in any case, is in response to police corruption, lack of training, overreach of power in general.   Their complaints are worthy but I am sorry that the voice of BLM has been subsumed.

Despite many posts on social media, articles, opinion pieces aiming to "prove" why BLM is not really a legitimate movement,  there are  also a lot of white people who have been inspired to speak out about racism and injustice whereas before they were content to accept the status quo, as it was not hurting them.  

 

 

[Zona]

8 hours ago, homecoming said:

The difference is that the actions of white people ...

Isn't that a racist statement? It paints all whites with the same brush like we are all the same and have the same values. If you were to replace white with black, or Asian then everyone would clearly see it is racist.

And to be fair, the United States has overall been a stabilizing force in the world. We defeated fascism, restrained communism, and created Democratic institutions to stop the endless wars in Europe (and Asia if you look what we did in Japan). How many technological advances have come from the U.S.? How many life saving drugs? And how exactly did "white people" in the United States export those negative things you mentioned (pay gaps or what have you)? Many countries of the world have adopted our capitalist system because it creates so much wealth and brings so many people out of poverty, even China adopted it. If they copy us, then that's not us "exporting" it, it's them admitting it works better than what they previously had.

And I'm pretty sure that India didn't need us to create the grossly unfair and racist caste system.

 

Edited June 15, 2020 by Zona

[homecoming]

34 minutes ago, Zona said:

Isn't that a racist statement? It paints all whites with the same brush like we are all the same and have the same values. If you were to replace white with black, or Asian then everyone would clearly see it is racist.

And to be fair, the United States has overall been a stabilizing force in the world. We defeated fascism, restrained communism, and created Democratic institutions to stop the endless wars in Europe (and Asia if you look what we did in Japan). How many technological advances have come from the U.S.? How many life saving drugs? And how exactly did "white people" in the United States export those negative things you mentioned (pay gaps or what have you)? Many countries of the world have adopted our capitalist system because it creates so much wealth and brings so many people out of poverty, even China adopted it. If they copy us, then that's not us "exporting" it, it's them admitting it works better than what they previously had.

And I'm pretty sure that India didn't need us to create the grossly unfair and racist caste system.

 

Semantics, I meant some white people, but was too late to edit. Obviously not all. I am not racist. 

Edited June 15, 2020 by homecoming

[homecoming]

It's been interesting, anyway. Some interesting points were raised, but in all honestly, it is exhausting, trying to explain that your very existence has been shaped and constructed by racism... so I'll head out of this topic, for now.

Here's an insightful quote from Reni Eddo-Lodge, who articulated it better;

“I’m no longer engaging with white people on the topic of race. Not all white people, just those who refuse to accept the existence of structural racism and its symptoms. I can no longer engage with the gulf of an emotional disconnect that these people display when a person of colour articulates their experience. You can see their eyes shut down and harden. It’s like treacle is poured into their ears, blocking up their ear canals. It’s like they can no longer hear us.

“This emotional disconnect is the conclusion of living a life oblivious to the fact that their skin colour is the norm and all others deviate from it.

“At best, many white people have been taught not to mention that people of colour are “different” in case it offends us. They truly believe that the experiences of their life as a result of their skin colour can and should be universal. I just can’t engage with the bewilderment and the defensiveness as they try to grapple with the fact that not everyone experiences the world in the way that they do.

"They’ve never had to think about what it means, in power terms, to be white, so any time they’re vaguely reminded of this fact, they interpret it as an affront. Their eyes glaze over in boredom or widen in indignation. Their mouths start twitching as they get defensive. Their throats open up as they try to interrupt, itching to talk over you but not to really listen, because they need to let you know that you’ve got it wrong"

hc

[jspice]

9 hours ago, Zona said:

A GPA of 4 is basically straight A's (Highest grade possible to achieve). What 18 year old can do that? You are at the mercy of your professors who can give you a crappy grade unjustly.

He may change his mind. Even if he get's an engineering degree,  he could still apply to medical school. Several doctors my wife works with did exactly that.

Who do y'all think is more open to immigration of minorities? Traditionally white countries, or non-white? It is even possible to immigrate to Japan or South Korea or China? It may be possible, but with tons of roadblocks meant to discourage it. It does get tiring when you are white to be told you are racist and xenophobic when we are mostly the opposite. In general, we have been way more open to other races and ethnicities and diversity as a whole.

What “traditionally White” countries are you taking about? 
Many of those decided they were going to occupy other lands, and nearly the entire African continent, so to oppose immigration would be quite hypocritical of them. Yet, there they are on TV complaining about “them foreigners ” Every chance they get  

The US is not traditionally White, nor is the UK ( since the latter too decided to steal the brown people whose countries they conquered).

White people are the visitors in the US. They damn sure better be open to diversity since they were once the minorities in the US  

If you mean EU countries, they’re not super welcoming to Black people ( as I’m assuming you’re using “minority” to mean “Black”. People of colour aren’t “minorities” everywhere).

Korea, China and Japan are homogenous nations. You can’t compare them with a country like the US, whose first and rightful inhabitants were brown.

Nor can you compare them with the UK, which brought those Brown people there and NOW they want to have a problem with them? 

Korea, Japan and China  never had any other races or nationalities so, yes immigration is hard but not impossible. 
They also don’t easily accept people of colour and the White man is king of the immigrants. 
Even there a White male will be hired before a male of a different colour. Next most popular are White women with “gold hair”. White people are seen as superior. Black people are trash  

These Asian nations, while bigoted AF have an excuse for their bigotry, as messed up as it is  They all share one language, culture and heritage and weren’t exposed to other ethnicities that much until very recently. 

Incidentally, despite the ingrained racism among a large portion of the population, I had the most amazing health insurance in Korea. In the US I can’t even afford to have my annual mammogram. 

[Ellener]

1 hour ago, enigma32 said:

The Wendy's in Atlanta as of yesterday. Peaceful protest? 

Yes that was the only fire I'd seen, or riot, after a man was shot there. It was shown numerous times.

There was a suspected 'local' arson at a bar here. And some suspect fire footage at the start of the protests which turned out to be mistakenly from China...

Almost all the protests have been peaceful. 

[Ellener]

1 hour ago, enigma32 said:

If you have seen no other fires, then you are intentionally trying not to see any of it. Just Google Minneapolis riot aftermath. 

I did google, and yes I missed the fires in the day after memorial day damage, which is listed in detail here https://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-st-paul-buildings-are-damaged-looted-after-george-floyd-protests-riots/569930671/

This is nothing to do with Black Lives Matter, this was the anger in the immediate aftermath of the murder, as was the Atlanta Wendy's fire.

Edited June 15, 2020 by Ellener
spelling

[vjk]

 

Regarding the OP's question , "does anti-white prejudice exits."

My family was dealing with Slavophobia between WW1 and WW2. (I'm 50%)  I'm told life was bad before they immigrated to the US, and my great grandparents wouldn't say much more about it. They did say that they loved America, and they would never go back.   I'm  now reading whites cannot experience racism. Of course, I have no idea what racism is anymore ,since it's being redefined. Just like my slavic ancestry was redefined to be white a few generations ago (at least in the US).

 

Edited June 15, 2020 by vjk

[major_merrick]

On 6/14/2020 at 4:24 AM, lana-banana said:

Is your argument that choosing to acknowledge a fact (the existence of structural racism) is going to make too many people uncomfortable and angry, so the solution is pretending it's not true?

I have no idea why you seem to think this requires anger or "vengeance". It certainly doesn't require any physical force or violence. We can repair structural inequities by replacing old institutions and creating new ones that support equality in justice. Personally I support reparations; it'd be a good use of tax dollars. But at any rate I support the changes needed to help give everyone a shot.

You are the only one talking about violence and conflict and "the Other". Who's an other? These are my fellow neighbors and Americans, and their success is my success. We can help each other without setting off some kind of apocalyptic war (which honestly sounds like something you're hoping for).

It doesn't "require" anger but it is an inevitable consequence.  Its human nature.  Of course the difference is that my worldview accepts the concept of original sin (that all people are essentially bad without God cleaning them up) and the Left wants to believe that people are essentially good.  Ultimately, any struggle for resources results in violence.  Thus, in order to achieve social progress, efforts in that direction ought not to end up taxing or redistributing resources.  Everybody is an "other" to somebody else.  And ultimately, human nature being what it is, I will choose me and mine over you and yours if it comes down to it.

No, I definitely don't hope for war or violence.  I like the community where I live, because most of us actually get along with each other without race/culture issues.   I see the type of perspective that you support as leading in a violent direction.  It is sad.  Telling people they are guilty because they are born a certain way is the reason people join up with supremacists and fascists.  And then people like me have to deal with Klan and Nazis and other nasty types while trying to live in our own peaceful corner.  Being in the middle kinda sucks these days.   

On 6/14/2020 at 10:45 AM, NuevoYorko said:

If the entire power structure  (federal government, state, local, law enforcement, all the way down to administration and teachers of the school) were dominated by a particular race, and members of another race or races were  systematically impeded from disrupting this paradigm,  that is racism.  In the USA, UK and the colonized world, the center of power is not in the hands of black or brown skinned people.  

Logical question here:  If the system is entirely in the hands of white people, why are white people often just as poor?  Why do white people get killed by cops?  I would think I would be better off if the system worked for me, but it doesn't.

I believe that the system is basically out of everybody's hands at this point.  Many of us are in agreement that the system needs to go - we're just arguing over HOW and WHY. 

On 6/14/2020 at 12:16 PM, Ellener said:

Look at this from Southern Poverty Law Center:

And as for the SPLC... left wing propaganda.  I'm amazed when people try to pass them off as some kind of unbiased source.  Absolutely wretched. 

Edited June 17, 2020 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Removed reference to removed personal attack.

[mrs rubble]

This whole thread has really made me think about my little place here in Aotearoa. (NZ)

My ancestors are mainly from the UK and France. However we have been in NZ for many generations, one thing that really sticks out to me is that yes we were privileged to be white, my parents generation and my grandparents generation were very racist with disparaging comments, most especially towards new English immigrants (although definitely not limited to), a lot of them would complain that things were better back in England, so new English immigrants were referred to as “whinging pommes” 

I feel like I’m part of a whole new generation, I’ve listened to racism towards many different races for so many years, at work and at home and in my son’s school but as our population has become so multi cultural I see so much more effort going into understanding each other’s culture and  celebrating each other’s traditions. 

I’m no longer hearing all those awful things that was the start of my racial journey in life took me. I love the culture I’ve found in the diversity of my multi ethnic friends, and treasure their friendship and acceptance of me. 

I hold onto hope that people everywhere can continue to grow in their understanding of each other.