• Wmill [they/them]
    ·
    4 years ago

    Words and attitudes towards the Romani people. Like damn most forms of racism is called out but like Europe has like a searing hatred for them. Also stopped using the word and various of it.

    • neebay [any,undecided]
      ·
      edit-2
      4 years ago

      I'm shocked at how common the term "gypped" still is, and most people using it seem to not even know it has anything to do with Romani (I didn't back when I still used the term).

      I've been trying to get "anglo'd" to catch on as a replacement.

      • wtypstanaccount04 [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        I didn't even realize that was a slur until about a year ago when someone pointed it out. The connection had never clicked in my mind.

      • rozako [she/her]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Yeah, I don't care about the word Gypsy being used (as someone who is Roma) but 'gypped' does make me genuinely upset

        • ConkZonk [any]
          ·
          4 years ago

          I hear that so often from otherwise genuinely progressive people, and it makes me physically cringe every time. Especially in America, people seem both unable and unwilling to understand why that term is problematic

      • Wmill [they/them]
        ·
        4 years ago

        I was gonna type it but too drunk to figure out how to do that. Gonna see about using anglo'd though. That's brilliant tbh.

    • TheCaconym [any]
      ·
      edit-2
      4 years ago

      There was a thread in /r/france a few hours ago on Romani people that is just abominable - just full on hatred in the whole thread. All highly upvoted comments.

  • discontinuuity [he/him]
    ·
    4 years ago

    Similarly, "sold down the river" refers to when "troublesome" slaves were sold to more brutal plantations in the Deep South

  • ComradeMikey [he/him]
    ·
    edit-2
    4 years ago

    Learning about IMF and how they enslave developing countries made me a socialist lol

    we watched life and debt in my anthro class and it sealed the deal

  • glimmer_twin [he/him]
    ·
    4 years ago

    “Off the reservation”. Like it’s obvious on its face if you think about it for two seconds, but it’s just an idiom, I never thought about it.

      • glimmer_twin [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        What the other guy said, it’s something you hear in like a cop movie where the chief says to the maverick hero cop “you’re off the reservation Johnson!” because he’s been doing maverick cop stuff.

    • crime [she/her, any]
      ·
      4 years ago

      I'm not super familiar with the idiom in common parlance, how is it usually used?

    • wtypstanaccount04 [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      After the Civil War, slave owners were granted reparations for their freed slaves, which helped them to preserve the wealth they lost through losing their slaves.

      I knew a libertarian fuck who thought that was the right thing to do.

      • crime [she/her, any]
        ·
        4 years ago

        You can find op-eds from the NYT arguing for that back in the day, time really is a flat circle

  • GrandAyatollaLenin [he/him,comrade/them]
    ·
    4 years ago

    Fun fact about holdovers of racism: many property deeds in the south still have terms forbidding the sale of the property to black people. It's not enforceable, but it's still passed down as a condition with each sale.

    • AnalGettysburg [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      Girlfriend was literally just reading an old Baltimore lease with that shit in it

    • Multihedra [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      4 years ago

      I found one of those in northeast Ohio. Well, I found a couple, mostly from the 1940s.

      But one in particular fucked me up because this deed was from the 80s and they copy-pasted the “no blacks allowed” clause from an older deed into this 1980s document. Like, why the fuck would you do that?? Especially considering—I hope to god you’re right—that it’s unenforceable

      Edit: I remember bringing it up on reddit during the early primaries and the general response was “uh sweaty, why would something that happened 30 years ago having anything to do with systemic racism today?”

      • GrandAyatollaLenin [he/him,comrade/them]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Racial discrimination is illegal, so if you abide by these policies, you'd actually be breaking the law. These conditions (easements, I think is the term) are very hard to remove.

        They originate in British law and mainly delt with land access. They protected the right of non-owners during land sales. For example, if you're a farmer and someone else's land is between your farm and the river, you could negotiate access through their land then get that codified as an easement. If they sell the land, it comes with the obligation to uphold your right and to pass those terms on to the next owner.

        Landowners can't strike them out because they're the ones bound by these terms. The people who put them in place are all dead, so they can't do it. A judge could get it removed from the deed if they think it effectively nullifys the owner's property rights. However, they have no effect, so this almost never gets done.

        • Multihedra [he/him]
          ·
          edit-2
          4 years ago

          I hadn’t thought about it that way. That makes sense that, as hereditary conditions imposed on future landowners, the conditions can’t be removed by those landowners to whom they apply.

          I guess I just figured lawyers or whoever writes the deeds would have the ability (even the order) to remove clearly illegal clauses from legal documents. But I guess that’s just too much to ask, fucking weird country

  • FloridaBoi [he/him]
    ·
    edit-2
    4 years ago

    Tipping and tipped wages have origins in reconstruction and post reconstruction south

  • Tupamaros [he/him]
    ·
    4 years ago

    The fact that there were some Native American slave owners. That shit shook me.

      • Tupamaros [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        All due respect, but I think that explanation is a cop out (whatever that means). It was a miniscule percentage that owned slaves. The same type as the 0.1% in most third world kleptocracies. Soulless, despicable opportunists. To say that they were doing it to protect themselves is misguided apologetics. They were doing it to enrich themselves.

          • FloridaBoi [he/him]
            ·
            4 years ago

            It's described in every anti-colonial text. A select and usually tiny number of the existing ruling class or groups chosen to be the ruling class of the colonized people are elevated to the local bourgeoisie to legitimize the colonial regime but also individual opportunists who get elevated to "preferred subjects" and act on behalf of the metropole, won't be at the wrong end of the colonizer's gun (at least initially). They also see their special status as a means to gain and control wealth and consolidate power locally even though they as a class will never attain parity with the colonizers.

              • FloridaBoi [he/him]
                ·
                4 years ago

                I was totally agreeing with you that it is both to varying degrees. So given the material reality and power structures, it's not that surprising that Indigenous people owned African slaves.

    • sexywheat [none/use name]
      ·
      4 years ago

      Unrelated to this thread, but not only were there American First Nations slave owners, but some Canadian First Nations would actually actively slave themselves even before colonisation. The Haida Gwaii, to this day, are hated among First Nations people in British Columbia. In the 19th century, some of the FN folks actually preferred to ally with the British against the Haida because the Haidi were so ruthless.

  • Nebbit [he/him]
    ·
    4 years ago

    Is saying like all of society too vague? That aside, it still fucks me up how ableist the mainstream is.