Talk:Black pride

African diaspora Stub‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yes, there is a double standard with "black pride" and "white pride". Probably because, unlike Anglo-Saxons, for centuries Blacks in America were considered subhuman exclusively owing to their race. (preceding unsigned comment by64.171.5.116 (talk • contribs) )

If you are going to make a statement like that you should at least have the courage to sign it. On another topic, I think more discussion about why black pride is considered positive and white pride is considered negative is in order. Moonchakka 01:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Moonchakka.[reply]

Don't worry, I deleted the racist crap. Zazaban 01:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you had good interntions, but please don't edit other people's comments or delete them. futurebird 12:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why this should be split

There are three terms: Black Pride, Black Power, Black is Beautiful

Black is beautiful is about healing the injuries of 200 years of racism in America. It is not a "pride movement" The "see also" on this page lists other pride movements. Black power refers explicitly to a movement tied to the black panthers.

This article needs to be split because Black pride and Black is Beautiful occurred at different times and had different goals (involving different people) Black is Beautiful is a huge topic and will need a lot of space anyway. Trust me. futurebird 12:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What bullshit

What's the difference between saying white pride and black pride, it's been set in our heads to favour blacks. Think about it, say Black Pride and you probably think of the glorious MLK and say white pride and you probably think of hooded KKK members, what a load of crap. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.2.139.217 (talk) 12:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You have to think about it in terms of power. White people have historically held power and used it to terrorize black people. We're just starting to wake up from that nightmare today. That's why "white pride" has negative racist connotations-- also, it is a euphemisms for "white supremacy."

You have to understand it took a lot of GUTS to say that one was proud to be black, people were taught to be ashamed of their culture-- to some extent this is still going on. Hope that clears things up! futurebird 12:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you when you say that blacks were taught to be ashamed of their culture, but whites are taught to be ashamed of their culture nowadays. I wish you would recognize this. It's not fair to have whites feeling bad about being white all the time, and it probably won't help anyone in the long run.--72.38.225.72 01:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, why is white pride so accusatory and black pride "nice"? Black Pride is not any nicer than sayin White pride and anyone who thinks or say so is a racist themselves.

RACISM

noun 1. the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races 2. discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race

It doesnt say If a white person discriminated or is predjudice, Its all people!!!

TO the person who said that black were discrimanated against for so long and thats why their allowed to Be racist towards white. Well im Ukainian and My people were prosecuted more than than the Jews were. Does that give me a Right to Be racist NO!! So what gives You? Go look up white pride it specifically says RACIST but Why doesnt it say it for Black pride That in itself is racist. Kye 07:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Who says anyone's being racist here? This isn't racism, it's truth. The term "White Pride" holds negative connatations because that's what is was. Nowadays, you can't say White pride without meaning White supremacy because of what happened in the past. I am by no means being racist toward Whites, and I am of some Irish and English descent anyway, but that's not the point. Black pride is about rising above discrimination and racism, and White pride was, and in some ways still is about using power to intimidate and harm. Think about it; did we African Americans ever lynch Whites?

Anyway, sorry about the rant, but I had to put in my two cents. Mizu onna sango15 (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm white, and I grew up in a small, backwater town in North Carolina, USA -- I've known plenty of (allegedly) "non-racist" white people who claimed "White Pride." According to them, they didn't hate or find other races inferior, they merely wanted to "preserve the bloodline" and "cultural heritage" of "white people." Of course, that was a bunch of BS, and they really were racist.

"Pride" in one's race is, by defintion, the opposite of racial equality -- pride indicates some reason why it's good to be one race and not another. To say "I'm proud to be X (black, white, latino, asian...)," means "I'm glad I'm not Y (not-X)." But why? Obviously, it is the underlying assumption that being X is better than being Y. Regardless of what people may intend by the term, or how they use it as a social tool, the principle behind the term is opposed to racial equality and supports racial separation and-or discrimination.

What if we replace the word "pride" by its synonyms? How about "black self-aggrandizing", "black vanity"? Somehow, I think that wouldn't go over very well, and I'm pretty sure I'd be called a racist, if I referred to Reverend Sharpton as an "arrogant negro activist" (however, calling him a "proud black activist" would get me a letter of recognition from the SPLC).

Also, there is a difference between not being ashamed of yourself because you have some certain genetics, and having "pride" in some kind of over-arching idea of "people of the same race" -- which lumps everyone into one nameless mass, just like the KKK does when it talks about "Jews" or "Blacks" as a faceless mass where everyone is exactly the same (so many times I've heard things like: "I've always been mistreated by 'Blacks' (nameless mass), so I don't trust any black people"). If I saw a jobless black person selling drugs, and I said "black people (faceless mass) are lazy criminals", I'd be making a racist remark. I took one person (or it could be many -- the amount doesn't matter) and lumped all people into one based on race. But guess what: that's exactly what I'd be doing if I said "black people (faceless mass) are intelligent" or "latinos (faceless mass) are hard workers", or any other comment that lumps everyone of a certain race together and attributes some trait to them as a whole. People seem to think that only attributing negative traits is racism. Or that only lumping some races together like that is racism (I heard an anecdote about a woman in Florida who was making negative comments about Puerto Ricans, and when accused of making racist remarks, she replied ". . .but I didn't say anything about black people?" -- no lie).

Sorry for the long rant, but I think it is important to understand these things if we ever do want social equality for all races. When a race is being (or has been) abused and under-privileged, the way to solve the problem is not to make them over-privileged (thus making other races under-privileged). The way to solve the problem is to give that race equal privilege. You don't give a "race" compensation for the abuse -- that's racism -- you give the individuals who were effected compensation from the individuals who did the effecting. But "as a race" there should be no social difference in privilege. Over-privileging the aggrieved minority just leads to further tension -- neo-nazi groups actually recruit by pointing out the fact that, currently, racist remarks against "white people" (faceless mass) and over-privileging of minorities are socially accepted, as a reason why someone needs to look out for the good of "white people" (faceless mass). So please, let's really have, in the words of Joseph Hill, "equal rights and justice", not this faux equality where everyone really just becomes as racist regarding their own race as the old "White Power" people were about the "white race." » MonkeeSage « 03:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]