HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why Reverse Racism Isn't ...

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 09:31 AM

Why Reverse Racism Isn't Real

This came across my FB feed this AM and I couldn't help but put it in the context of DU.

I spend a lot of time on the internet. I write in various places on the internet, I interact in lively and active commenting communities at different websites, and I partake in a multitude of online forums that have an ongoing and pretty continuous stream of communication between the contributors. Ya know what Iíve noticed? Any time a PoC starts to talk about their experiences with racism, a white person chimes in to derail the conversation and talk about their own experiences with Ďreverse racism.í And yes, Iím going to say Ďany timeí and not Ďsometimesí because I have never once been in an internet dialogue amongst commenters and observed a PoC bring up their experience with real, actual, systemic or overt racism and not encountered a white person trying to make it all about their experiences with perceived racism. Not once. It happens every time. Ya know what else? That shit is tired, played out, and incorrect. So letís talk about why reverse racism isnít real and why white people need to let that one go.

Racism exists when prejudice+power combine to form social constructs, legislation and widespread media bias that contribute to the oppression of the rights and liberties of a group of people. Racism is systemic, institutional, and far reaching. It is the prevalence of racism within social structures and institutional norms, along with implicit and explicit enforcement by members of a group, that allows racism to run rampant and unchecked. America is a country seeped in white privilege, and our social structure is built on colonization and forced slave labor that then turned into further systemic and ongoing oppression of PoC. We have a culture that presents whiteness as the norm and all else as Ďotherí or different. White is presented as the beauty ideal, the main face in the media (unless weíre talking about criminals, then PoC get unfairly misrepresented), the standard, the regular. Itís a structural problem that affects the perceptions of jurors in criminal cases, admissions to colleges, funding for public schools, welfare and food stamp programs, the redrawing of district lines that affect where we vote, who we see represented on T.V. and how, what schools people have access to, what neighborhoods people live in, an individualís shopping experience, access to goods and services; itís extensive and a part of the fabric that letís whiteness remain dominant in American culture.

When Iím online talking to people and a PoC is sharing their experience with racism, Iím listening and I am learning. This is an experience I will probably never have in my lifetime, simply because of the skin I was born into. I need to know what I can do to be a better ally and to make the world a more equal place one interaction at a time. So I observe, I listen, I join the conversation, and I try to understand. Inevitably, here comes a white person either claiming that they have a similar experience because they grew up in an all black neighborhood and got chased on the way home from school a few times, or because their black friend tried to touch their straight hair one time without permission and OMG THAT IS SO RACIST and it is the exact same thing, or some other such bullshittery, and they expect that ignorance to be suffered in silence and with respect. If you are that kid who got chased after school, thatís horrible, and I feel bad for you. And if you are that person who had another person try to touch you without your permission, that was wrong of them, and Iím sorry that happened to you. But dudes, that shit is not racism.

The situations in which you, fellow white person, were involved were unfortunate and inappropriate, this is true. But to claim that these experiences were Ďreverse racismí both diminishes and minimalizes the real and actual experiences of PoC who really do encounter racism. There is no system of oppression in America that actively works to oppress and subjugate white people. Sorry to break it to you, but your individual suffering is just that, individual. The individuals acting against you do not have the institutionalized power to actively oppress you in every facet of your life, nor would their racism be upheld and supported by government, media, and legislation if they did. Because youíre white.


More a link: http://feminspire.com/why-reverse-racism-isnt-real/

I wonder what her DU name is. I also think the same can and should be said about sexism.

195 replies, 27804 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 195 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why Reverse Racism Isn't Real (Original post)
PeaceNikki Jul 2014 OP
Kurska Jul 2014 #1
PeaceNikki Jul 2014 #4
Kurska Jul 2014 #5
PeaceNikki Jul 2014 #6
Kurska Jul 2014 #7
PeaceNikki Jul 2014 #9
Kurska Jul 2014 #13
Hofbrau Jul 2014 #104
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #113
ryan_cats Jul 2014 #126
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #132
PeaceNikki Jul 2014 #133
AlbertCat Jul 2014 #28
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #64
Gormy Cuss Jul 2014 #90
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #115
wryter2000 Jul 2014 #117
AlbertCat Jul 2014 #136
Gormy Cuss Jul 2014 #143
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #53
Kurska Jul 2014 #61
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #67
Kurska Jul 2014 #69
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #79
Kurska Jul 2014 #86
alp227 Jul 2014 #105
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #118
Hofbrau Jul 2014 #123
el_bryanto Jul 2014 #150
Bluenorthwest Jul 2014 #11
PeaceNikki Jul 2014 #12
Bluenorthwest Jul 2014 #16
Nye Bevan Jul 2014 #37
politicaljunkie41910 Jul 2014 #57
Nye Bevan Jul 2014 #78
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #62
Nye Bevan Jul 2014 #75
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #59
Bluenorthwest Jul 2014 #189
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #190
Bluenorthwest Jul 2014 #193
politicaljunkie41910 Jul 2014 #41
Hofbrau Jul 2014 #108
nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #137
Hofbrau Jul 2014 #161
nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #163
Hofbrau Jul 2014 #164
nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #165
Hofbrau Jul 2014 #187
nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #195
DirkGently Jul 2014 #97
nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #138
DirkGently Jul 2014 #148
nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #149
DirkGently Jul 2014 #151
nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #152
DirkGently Jul 2014 #155
nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #158
AgingAmerican Jul 2014 #154
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2014 #177
PeaceNikki Jul 2014 #14
Bluenorthwest Jul 2014 #31
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #54
stevenleser Jul 2014 #162
gollygee Jul 2014 #174
stevenleser Jul 2014 #175
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #185
Bluenorthwest Jul 2014 #192
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #194
sulphurdunn Jul 2014 #42
PeaceNikki Jul 2014 #43
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #121
PeaceNikki Jul 2014 #125
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2014 #179
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #181
heaven05 Jul 2014 #55
mythology Jul 2014 #144
Android3.14 Jul 2014 #27
PeaceNikki Jul 2014 #29
Kurska Jul 2014 #63
Hofbrau Jul 2014 #109
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #124
JustAnotherGen Jul 2014 #34
PeaceNikki Jul 2014 #38
JustAnotherGen Jul 2014 #73
Kurska Jul 2014 #52
JustAnotherGen Jul 2014 #70
gollygee Jul 2014 #74
JimDandy Jul 2014 #72
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #127
JustAnotherGen Jul 2014 #145
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2014 #180
JustAnotherGen Jul 2014 #182
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2014 #99
AgingAmerican Jul 2014 #156
Capt. Obvious Jul 2014 #173
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #48
PeaceNikki Jul 2014 #50
Kurska Jul 2014 #51
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #128
Kurska Jul 2014 #129
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #135
Kurska Jul 2014 #147
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #169
jen63 Jul 2014 #146
JustAnotherGen Jul 2014 #83
Scootaloo Jul 2014 #131
Kurska Jul 2014 #188
nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #142
REP Jul 2014 #171
Bad Thoughts Jul 2014 #186
Nye Bevan Jul 2014 #2
heaven05 Jul 2014 #49
alp227 Jul 2014 #100
nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #139
ananda Jul 2014 #3
reddread Jul 2014 #22
nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #140
On the Road Jul 2014 #8
cali Jul 2014 #21
merrily Jul 2014 #10
cali Jul 2014 #19
Nye Bevan Jul 2014 #39
cali Jul 2014 #111
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2014 #183
reddread Jul 2014 #15
DinahMoeHum Jul 2014 #17
cali Jul 2014 #18
Shemp Howard Jul 2014 #20
PeaceNikki Jul 2014 #23
Gormy Cuss Jul 2014 #24
smirkymonkey Jul 2014 #92
malaise Jul 2014 #25
Nye Bevan Jul 2014 #33
JustAnotherGen Jul 2014 #35
heaven05 Jul 2014 #45
Starry Messenger Jul 2014 #66
gollygee Jul 2014 #76
JustAnotherGen Jul 2014 #80
PeaceNikki Jul 2014 #84
laundry_queen Jul 2014 #106
Nye Bevan Jul 2014 #122
Starry Messenger Jul 2014 #130
heaven05 Jul 2014 #170
malaise Jul 2014 #56
alp227 Jul 2014 #101
AgingAmerican Jul 2014 #157
politicaljunkie41910 Jul 2014 #26
mountain grammy Jul 2014 #30
davidthegnome Jul 2014 #32
PeaceNikki Jul 2014 #36
Iggo Jul 2014 #40
heaven05 Jul 2014 #44
PeaceNikki Jul 2014 #46
A Simple Game Jul 2014 #47
heaven05 Jul 2014 #60
sulphurdunn Jul 2014 #58
heaven05 Jul 2014 #65
JustAnotherGen Jul 2014 #88
Dustlawyer Jul 2014 #68
PeaceNikki Jul 2014 #71
JustAnotherGen Jul 2014 #91
ismnotwasm Jul 2014 #77
qazplm Jul 2014 #89
ismnotwasm Jul 2014 #110
Nye Bevan Jul 2014 #120
geek tragedy Jul 2014 #172
KittyWampus Jul 2014 #81
PeaceNikki Jul 2014 #82
KittyWampus Jul 2014 #87
gollygee Jul 2014 #94
Jenoch Jul 2014 #85
gtar100 Jul 2014 #93
PeaceNikki Jul 2014 #134
area51 Jul 2014 #95
PeaceNikki Jul 2014 #96
boston bean Jul 2014 #168
PeaceNikki Jul 2014 #178
FBaggins Jul 2014 #184
Capt. Obvious Jul 2014 #176
AgingAmerican Jul 2014 #98
wcast Jul 2014 #102
JustAnotherGen Jul 2014 #166
wcast Jul 2014 #167
Hofbrau Jul 2014 #103
AgingAmerican Jul 2014 #114
TorchTheWitch Jul 2014 #107
Nye Bevan Jul 2014 #112
wryter2000 Jul 2014 #116
ismnotwasm Jul 2014 #119
Nye Bevan Jul 2014 #160
Takket Jul 2014 #141
TheKentuckian Jul 2014 #153
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2014 #159
WatermelonRat Jul 2014 #191

Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 09:35 AM

1. So these riots were not racist then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Heights_Riot

"About three hours after the riots began, early on the morning of August 20, a group of approximately 20 young black men surrounded 29-year-old Australian Jew, Yankel Rosenbaum, a University of Melbourne student in the United States conducting research for his doctorate. They stabbed him several times in the back and beat him severely, fracturing his skull. Before being taken to the hospital, Rosenbaum was able to identify 16-year-old Lemrick Nelson, Jr. as his assailant in a line-up shown to him by the police.[4] Rosenbaum died later that night. Nelson was charged as an adult[18] with murder and acquitted, but later convicted of violating Rosenbaum's civil rights in federal court; Nelson eventually admitted that he had indeed stabbed Rosenbaum."

Racism is prejudiced actions against anyone of any race. Every race is capable of racism and every race can be a victim, though obviously minorities suffer far more from racism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kurska (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 09:40 AM

4. Click the link and keep reading.

Surely individual acts of [strike]racism[/strike] bigotry against white people can and do occur. And they're awful. Horrible. But there is no system of oppression in America that actively works to oppress and subjugate white people.

The individuals acting do not have the institutionalized power to actively oppress you in every facet of your life, nor would their racism be upheld and supported by government, media, and legislation if they did. Because youíre white.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #4)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 09:42 AM

5. I have no idea where you got the idea there had to be a "system" of racism for it to be racism.

That is what the author of the article you linked is claiming.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2: racial prejudice or discrimination


"Racism exists when prejudice+power combine to form social constructs"

No, racism exists where one human being is being shitty to another human being because of their race. This is just something he/she appeared to make up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kurska (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 09:44 AM

6. Then perhaps take a cue from the article and listen and learn.

Or move on?


Or don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #6)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 09:44 AM

7. I don't think your article is a more credible source for the definition of words than the dictionary

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kurska (Reply #7)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 09:58 AM

9. yuck it up. I'm not sure what's so ROFL hilarious about asking people to listen and learn

I'm not looking for a fight about it, I'm asking for empathy from a group of self proclaimed Democrats when the topics of racism and sexism are being discussed. If you're unable to do that... It says a lot about you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #9)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 10:20 AM

13. Empathy for what? Claiming that certain actions aren't racist, because of skin color of the doer?

That is an disgusting assertion and it should be laughed at.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #9)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 03:15 PM

104. It sure isn't funny...

 

It's a coordinated effort to excuse certain "brands" of racism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hofbrau (Reply #104)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 04:40 PM

113. The is only one "brand" of racism ...

 

there are, however, several "breeds" of bigotry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #113)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 05:42 PM

126. I'm sure Native Americans are on your side

I'm sure Native Americans are on your side. No, there are no other races that were attacked and repressed, yeah, sure...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ryan_cats (Reply #126)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 06:15 PM

132. I'm pretty sure you think that snark is on point ...

 

However, it just proves your ignorance. Native Americans and Hispanics and Asians and every other non-white groups experience the same racism as Black folks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ryan_cats (Reply #126)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 06:31 PM

133. Native Americans are "people of color"

Person of color (plural: people of color; persons of color) is a term used primarily in the United States to describe any person who is not white. The term is meant to be inclusive among non-white groups, emphasizing common experiences of racism. People of color was introduced as a preferable replacement to both non-white and minority, which are also inclusive, because it frames the subject positively; non-white defines people in terms of what they are not (white), and minority frequently carries a subordinate connotation.[1] Style guides for writing from American Heritage,[2] the Stanford Graduate School of Business,[3] Mount Holyoke College,[4] recommend the term over these alternatives. It may also be used with other collective categories of people such as students of color, men of color and women of color.

Although the term citizens of color was used by Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1963, and other uses date to as early as 1793, people of color did not gain prominence for many years.[6][7] Influenced by radical theorists like Frantz Fanon, racial justice activists in the U.S. began to use the term people of color in the late 1970s and early 1980s. By the late 1980s and early 1990s, it was in wide circulation.[8] Both anti-racist activists and academics sought to move understandings of race beyond the black-white binary then prevalent.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_color

And, yeah, I think they have some solid experience in dealing with institutionalized and societal racism. Listen and learn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kurska (Reply #7)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 10:59 AM

28. I don't think your article is a more credible source for the definition of words than the dictionary

 

True true....


But the article did define its term early on.... even if it isn't the real definition of "racism". It was clear it is talking about systematic racism in the USA.... which is indeed not what "racism" means.

Still...reading it within its self limiting definitions it makes sense.

Just as pointing out it has redefined the word also makes sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #28)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:52 AM

64. Actually ...

 

the article's definition of the term "racism" IS the "real" definite ... if one accepts the work of the Social Scientists that study the phenomena, over that of linguists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #28)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 12:38 PM

90. The author made clear in context that racism was being defined in this piece as institutional

or structural racism, and the word 'racism' alone is not a new shorthand for the term. Ask a sociologist.

What's also not new is the propensity by some whites to haul out a dictionary that *proves" whites can be the target of individual bigotry AKA non-institutional racism, so quibbling over that is more important that discussing the larger issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gormy Cuss (Reply #90)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 04:50 PM

115. Very true and Sadly, also, very true ...

 



All without recognizing that how terms are defined is the very basis of institutionalization ... dictionaries are the repositories of institutionalization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gormy Cuss (Reply #90)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 04:55 PM

117. Wish I could rec a post

You hit the nail on the head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gormy Cuss (Reply #90)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 06:40 PM

136. The author made clear in context that racism was being defined in this piece as institutional

 

or structural racism, and the word 'racism' alone is not a new shorthand for the term."


Didn't I say that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #136)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 07:35 PM

143. Yes you did.

But many upthread were ignoring that.

eta: and downthread too I see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kurska (Reply #7)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:37 AM

53. So linguists are a more credible source for a definition ...

 

than the Social Scientists that study the phenomena?

Main stream dictionaries' definition of racism has remained unchanged, despite the body, and weight, of the post Civil Rights Era academic work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #53)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:45 AM

61. Well, first off linguists don't write dictionaries. Lexicographers do.

And there isn't a 100% scientific and absolute definition for any word that can be discovered by scientists like you can discover laws of physics. That is why we can have different language in the first place and why the meaning of words change over time. So in reality what even the most dedicated academic THINKS the definition of a word should be is irrelevant.

The meaning of a word is simply how that word is used by the people who speak the language it is from, which is what a lexicographer chronicles. The dictionary is a reflection of how people actually use the word.

And the vast majority of people do not agree with the definition of racism you're advocating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kurska (Reply #61)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:57 AM

67. You are correct, Lexicographers not Linguists ...

 

And the vast majority of people do not agree with the definition of racism you're advocating.


And why do you think that is the case ... thought-starter, enter the term "institutionalized" and proceed from there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #67)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 12:03 PM

69. They don't agree with it, because that isn't how the word is used by vast majority of people.

For my entire life people have said racism is bigotry based on race. Bigotry can be directed at people for many reasons besides race (sexuallity, relgion...etc). By trying to make it so that racism describes bigotry based on institutionalized systems, you make it so that there is no specific word to describe bigotry based on race that isn't based on institutionalized systems.

You remove meaning from a word and propose it be replaced by a more generic word, that is also used to mean different things. There is literally no reason to do that. The concept that you're trying to describe (racism that has institutional power) is already perfectly described by the term "institutionalized racism".

Explain to me why YOU want to change the language.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kurska (Reply #69)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 12:17 PM

79. Well ...

 

They don't agree with it, because that isn't how the word is used by vast majority of people.


Isn't that, pretty much, the definition of, if not the result of it being, institutionalized?

Explain to me why YOU want to change the language.


Because I respect the word of the social scientist that study the phenomena of racism.

But a question for you: Explain why you are so resistant to the change of language ... I doubt you accept/cling to 50+ year old definitions, that those studying the area no longer use, in other areas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #79)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 12:35 PM

86. I love how you ignored the entire middle part of my post. Which was the substance of my argument.

"For my entire life people have said racism is bigotry based on race. Bigotry can be directed at people for many reasons besides race (sexuallity, relgion...etc). By trying to make it so that racism describes bigotry based on institutionalized systems, you make it so that there is no specific word to describe bigotry based on race that isn't based on institutionalized systems.

You remove meaning from a word and propose it be replaced by a more generic word, that is also used to mean different things. There is literally no reason to do that. The concept that you're trying to describe (racism that has institutional power) is already perfectly described by the term "institutionalized racism". "

Explain to me why the definition you're offering is better.

Yeah forget the rest of my post on edit, what I'm really curious about is this part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kurska (Reply #61)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 03:28 PM

105. "the vast majority of people do not agree with the definition of racism you're advocating. "

So what? Reality is not a popularity contest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Reply #105)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 05:01 PM

118. And, "the vast majority of people" haven't studied ...

 

the dynamics of racism. But those that have, have long since abandoned the "Webster's" definition of racism, as an inadequate descriptor of the observed phenomena.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Reply #105)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 05:22 PM

123. From here on out war is only defined as a state of conflict...

 

.... Between Germans and the English. All other variants are to be referred to as strong disagreements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kurska (Reply #7)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 08:38 PM

150. Jesus - what kind of response is that?

Even if you don't like the word you could at least make an attempt to understand the point being expressed. There is a difference between a white person's experience with bigotry than a black persons - because white people run everything.

IS that really so complicated?

Bryant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #6)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 10:02 AM

11. So what is the word, then, for systemic, institutional and pervasive oppression and discrimination

 

that is based on something other than race? But bigotry against LGBT is pervasive, institutional to the point of containing legalized discrimination, and systemic.
So what's the word for that? I just don't care for any trope that attempts to minimize the oppression of LGBT people by straight people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #11)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 10:05 AM

12. I'm not sure, but I agree.

Homophobia? And i think a lot of that stems from sexism and people not conforming to societal "norms". I think you have a valid point of systematic oppression of other groups, especially LGBT.


And I absolutely believe we should listen and learn from experiences of LGBT without dismissal as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #12)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 10:26 AM

16. Yes I do have a valid point. Here's the thing, if any individual expresses animus

 

or presumed opinions about any minority group, that individual is committing the exact same personal wrong as any other individual doing the same toward any other group.
That's the problem with messing around with definitions of words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #16)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:14 AM

37. Yep, racist whites in South Africa are just as reprehensible as racist whites in the USA,

despite the fact that in South Africa the black majority controls all of the power structures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #37)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:42 AM

57. Black control in South Africa if you can call it that, has existed for a hot minute if that?

You can't control generations of ignorance and oppression overnight. the last time I checked the mvast majority of blacks in South Africa still live in shanti towns and in extreme poverty. White people controlled the wealth and the resources in that country, and electing Mandela the first black president, didn't strip whites of their land and the money. So as far as economic oppression, not much has changed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #37)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:47 AM

62. Not to quibble; but ...

 

having a Black person over/in control of, and maintaining, the same system that oppressed Black folks is not/was not the end of racism in South Africa (or the American south, or any place that happens to have a Black person in charge).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #62)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 12:13 PM

75. Yep, that's my point.

Racism is racism, whether or not the racist is part of the group that's running things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #16)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:43 AM

59. Actually, the refining of definitions ...

 

especially, when done by those directly and negatively affected by the act, is/would be the ANSWER to the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #59)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 01:29 PM

189. You note that I posed a question, which went unanswered.

 

Bigotry is not exclusive of institutional and societal elements. To say 'bigotry is when it is personal, racism means institutional' denies the institutional oppression of LGBT people which is a result of bigotry.
The language we seek to make must be always more inclusive, not constantly constricted to exclude some minority groups. If you take away the words used to describe injustice, you take the ability to fight that injustice.
I am subject to societal, institutional discrimination which is not based upon race. That's a fact. Millions of people are in the same shoes I'm in. Millions of those are also People of Color. This presents a terminology challenge. Perhaps the discussion would be best left to lesbians of color as they are the group that gets the trifecta of racism, sexism and homophobia.
Part of this is that homophobia is a flawed term. I think that homophobia describes a reason for anti gay prejudice but not the thing itself. But we are sort of stuck with it for now, so I use it in the way most people understand it. What can you do? Not talk about it? Be constantly confusing to the poor straights who are often trying really hard to understand and to evolve? I just use homophobia or anti gay bigotry which is more accurate but also clunky, and of course if 'bigotry' comes to mean 'not institutional' then it becomes a word that is inapplicable to anti gay animus and actions. Leaving us with homophobia or long phrases that hinder communication.
It is a very interesting area of discussion, that's for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #189)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 01:39 PM

190. I think I touched on it here ...

 

I really wish someone would explore this further.

I agree that bigotry against LGBT is pervasive, institutional to the point of containing legalized discrimination, and systemic. More importantly, I would argue that there must be a term in the lexicon that reflects our recognition of that fact.

I suspect that, with the increase in GLBT studies, a term will be found/adopted; however, as with racial studies, it will take time ... it took 50+ years of academic study of racism to refine our understanding of the phenomena.

I, also, suspect that the term will originate in the GLBT community, as they describe their experiences and academia sheds it hetero-centric (I got that word from you ... Thanks ) world view.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5238445

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #190)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 01:49 PM

193. I love this post man, and I commented on it upthread, I am behind the times today....

 

I wish I'd been able to stay in this conversation longer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #12)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:22 AM

41. Just as you stated in your OP, everytime one tries to have a conversation about racism

the conversation gets hijacked by someone with another agenda. In your OP, you suggested it usually is a white person, but it could very well be by a member of another discriminated group.

I hate the fact that we pit one discriminated group against another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to politicaljunkie41910 (Reply #41)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 04:03 PM

108. This one started in the OP...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hofbrau (Reply #108)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 06:48 PM

137. So how exactly are we white people disadvantaged or oppressed in American society?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nomorenomore08 (Reply #137)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 01:06 AM

161. The painfully obvious point...

 

... Is that your question has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of racism.

It does, however, have something to do with the smaller subset of racism known as institutional racism.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hofbrau (Reply #161)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 01:25 AM

163. I just don't like seeing people use "Racism goes both ways!" as an excuse for false equivalencies.

Compared with the mass murder, enslavement, and social and political repression of American Indians, Africans, and others, there is no "reverse" equivalent at any time in this country's history.

Not to mention the folks who cry "reverse racist" any time a person of color says something that might make white people uncomfortable. Or if a white person says it, they're "self-loathing" - which is essentially the new "ni**er lover."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nomorenomore08 (Reply #163)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 02:08 AM

164. Likes and dislikes don't play into the equation...

 

The two are still unrelated...

Not to mention the fact that past bad behavior seems to be the excuse for current bad behavior.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hofbrau (Reply #164)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 02:22 AM

165. What "current bad behavior" would that be? Other than individuals being assholes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nomorenomore08 (Reply #165)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 12:10 PM

187. I would suggest that excusing racist behavior...

 

... Or attempting to soften it from the emotionally charged 'racist' to 'prejudiced' or something that plays a bit less icky.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hofbrau (Reply #187)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 07:59 PM

195. I don't see specific examples of that, but I will agree that rudeness and unkindness shouldn't be

encouraged in most instances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #12)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 01:51 PM

97. Fascinating verbal gerrymandering. What's it for?

So, the idea is that we're going to redefine traditional terms for sociological and political reasons.

As it stands,

1. We already have words for "culture-wide group-based oppression" and "institutional racism."

2. We have another term, "racism," which refers generally to racial animus: a race-based motivation for hatred or discrimination, in which anyone, in any group, can engage.

The new premise is that we will now say that "racism" only applies when racial animus is wielded by members of the most-empowered groups -- here, white people.

This is a political construct, and one that has not been thought out.

I think we can all understand the motivation:

1. To emphasize the importance of relative group power within the culture as a whole when discussing bigotry of any kind.

2. To undercut the "tit for tat" cultural muttering where an empowered group claims "it's same for everybody" because individual racism still exists against the empowered group. Somewhere a white person or a man or a Christian suffered discrimination, and someone will use that to imply that the larger social dynamic is therefore diminished.

But is it so hard to articulate these things that we need to disingenuously claim that individual racial animus doest even exist?

And immediately you have this problem:

What will we now call individual racial animus outside of the empowered group attacking a less-empowered group? The Asian-American landlord who hates black people and will not rent to them. Not a "racist" because Asian-Americans are not at the top of the overall racial dynamic in America?

And are we going to employ this new frame of relative culture-wide group power to qualify all bigotry? What if a culture-wide overweening oppression cannot be shown, or dissipates? Will we e-evaluate each group's right to be recognized as capable of bigotry or insulated from it, on the basis of the current culture?

No one's going to buy "only __ people can be ___" on the theory that only successful, culture-wide, institutional bigotry counts at all. It's silly and it infantilizes the genuine argument it tries to advance.

It's just lazy argument. And so transparently untrue that it just discredits people trying to wield it. "I can't be racist, despite my hatred for ___, because I am ___." Really?

No one's going to look at a black person being racist or a woman being sexist or a Unitarian being religiously bigoted and pretend it's something else to advance this facile idea that only culture as a whole matters.

It's not so hard to make a point overall group dynamics that we have to also pretend that individuals don't EVER engage in bigotry except from an empowered group, toward a less-empowered group.

Nobody thinks that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #97)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 06:51 PM

138. Racism is the privileging of one racial group over another. But people of any race can play into it.

And of course, anyone can be bigoted against anyone else on the individual level, but white people have never been subject to systemic racism in this country the way other races have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nomorenomore08 (Reply #138)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 08:26 PM

148. No. Racism is racial animus of any kind. Institutional racism


is called "institutional racism." There is no point to be made by trying to dishonestly eliminate the existence of non-institutional racism by playing silly word games.

The weird sort of insidious conceit that only the dominant group can ever even be guilty of racism is a delirious lie that makes the people flogging it sound childish.

The term for race-based hatred or discrimination is "racism." No amount of political semantic gerrymandering is going to change that to mean "but just when white people do it."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #148)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 08:34 PM

149. The problem is people use false equivalencies to obscure who is actually impacted by racism.

White people, individually, may encounter rudeness or hostility - or in some cases, physical violence - from people of color, but their day-to-day lives are not negatively impacted by collective notions of white inferiority. There is no centuries-long history in this country of white people being considered, and treated as, less than human by people of color, unlike the reverse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nomorenomore08 (Reply #149)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 08:48 PM

151. That's true and a fine point. It does not,


however, require changing the definition of the existing terminology to obscure the fact that racial animus is a universal human failing that is wrong whether it relies on institutionalized cultural advantages for support or not.

You lose a lot of plain meaning if you throw away individual racism as a concept. It's not so difficult to draw the difference between oppression and bigotry that we have to start pretending "xx people can't be racist."

Anyone can hate and discriminate, and it is inherently harmful in every case.

I think what's being disingenuously floated is actually the idea that it's really okay for anyone outside the dominant cultural group to BE hateful and discriminatory, because it's not universally oppressive.

That is a specious and unholy idea that belongs nowhere in our discourse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #151)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 08:55 PM

152. "the idea that it's really okay for anyone outside the dominant cultural group to BE hateful and

discriminatory..."

I can't guarantee that no individual, ever, feels that way. What I can tell you is that I've lived my whole life (as a white guy) in a progressive, racially diverse area and I've scarcely ever encountered the attitude you complain of. The people of color I've happened to meet, even those with fairly radical political views, have largely embraced me as an individual.

It's not so much a particular definition of "racism" I have a problem with, but more (usually white) people using it as an excuse to ignore this country's shameful racist history, and to promote facile, false notions of "unity" or "equality."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nomorenomore08 (Reply #152)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 09:17 PM

155. Anyone can be racist. It serves no purpose to pretend otherwise.


I get that people are tired of arguing with dominant groups that individual racial animus is the equivalent of effective systemic oppression, but that doesn't justify pretending individual racial animus magically exists only in the dominant group.

If we're going to examine the identity of the perpetrator of every racist action for the relative systemic power to oppress, you're just going to render the term meaningless.

Is a Hispanic CEO who refuses to promote only Asian subordinates not being "racist" because he is not a member of the dominant white culture? He can't "oppress" Asians as a whole, but he can be hateful and discriminatory. But that conduct isn't "racist?"

For that matter, is an unemployed white racist ruminating impotently on the Third Reich from his run-down apartment also not racist, because he is not in the position to "oppress" anyone?

You can't just willy nilly make words mean different things because you find arguing nuance too frustrating. It is just as easy to say "institutional racism" or "racial oppression" when that's what you mean as it is to float a whopper like "only whites can be racist" on the theory the word racist no longer means "racist."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #155)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 09:55 PM

158. "...pretending individual racial animus magically exists only in the dominant group."

I don't see where anyone has stated as much. Saying it's not quite the same thing does not equal denying it exists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #148)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 09:16 PM

154. Some folks want to have it both ways

 

They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to take a swim without getting wet.

It is the most vile sort of hypocrisy, IMHO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #97)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 11:04 AM

177. Actually we do have a word for number 2

2. We have another term, ... which refers generally to racial animus: a race-based motivation for hatred or discrimination, in which anyone, in any group, can engage.


bigotry. Specifically racial bigotry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #11)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 10:22 AM

14. and please know I'm right there beside you every time I see it happening here

Specifically when the Pope is praised as some liberal giant.

I appreciate the education and information you provide to remind us all of the systematic and far reaching oppression of LGBT for which he and the RCC are responsible.

I take the same position stated in the article:

"I need to know what I can do to be a better ally and to make the world a more equal place one interaction at a time. So I observe, I listen, I join the conversation, and I try to understand."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #14)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:04 AM

31. Oh I know that.

 

To define racism as only institutional and societal requires altering the definition of bigotry to mean 'not institutional or societal' but the bigotry of Straight Culture against LGBT people is legalized, fully institutional and pervasive.
So those words don't work unless you dismiss all sorts of bigotry, discrimination and oppression of classes of people which are not determined by race.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #11)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:39 AM

54. As best I can tell ...

 

that word would be: Homophobia.

What word would/do you use?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #11)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 01:18 AM

162. I'm wondering along with you the relevance and value of what the author is trying to do here.

 

I'm not receptive to suggestions that bias by members one group against another "can't really be bias" because the recipient is part of a privileged group and I think any suggestions along those lines are counterproductive.

Certainly on a micro level, it means no difference to a person being attacked or discriminated against whether their 'group' tends to have more privilege than the group of the perpetrators.

If anything, I think some of the ideas expressed in the article are dangerous as they could be a basis for rejecting claims of bias and hate crimes against someone because the victim belonged to a privileged group.

It makes much more sense to me for the message to be sent out that no one is above prejudice and bias and that in fact almost all human beings have some and the point is to recognize that and struggle against it every day. That is the message I got from visiting the museum of tolerance in Los Angeles 15 years ago now and it is one I never forgot. People who are on board with that are not folks you have to worry about bogus claims of reverse discrimination.

If someone is pulling out a specific bogus reverse prejudice claim to derail a discussion or investigation then point it out. Broad brush claims that lesser privileged individuals cannot be biased against folks with more privilege is nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #162)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 10:25 AM

174. Nobody is saying the bias can't be bias

Just that racism is more than bias. It's bias with societal power added to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #174)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 10:47 AM

175. Maybe that is not what they are trying to say, but it has that connotation. It's dismissive.

 

I get that idiots crowing about reverse-racism and reverse-sexism is annoying, but I don't think this is the answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #11)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 11:42 AM

185. I really wish someone would explore this further ...

 

I agree that bigotry against LGBT is pervasive, institutional to the point of containing legalized discrimination, and systemic. More importantly, I would argue that there must be a term in the lexicon that reflects our recognition of that fact.

I suspect that, with the increase in GLBT studies, a term will be found/adopted; however, as with racial studies, it will take time ... it took 50+ years of academic study of racism to refine our understanding of the phenomena.

I, also, suspect that the term will originate in the GLBT community, as they describe their experiences and academia sheds it hetero-centric (I got that word from you ) world view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #185)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 01:45 PM

192. Such a term would be found by LGBT people of color, women in particular I'd guess

 

Lesbians of color are particularly experienced with the nuances of multi level animus toward them. I defer to them whenever possible when discussing these things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #192)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 01:57 PM

194. As I typically defer to the LGBT community on matters of sexuality ...

 

Two questions, though:

1) {I my least threatening voice that I can muster} If you defer to LGBT people of color, women in particular I'd guess Lesbians of color when discussing those things, why would you resist deferring to PoC in matters of racism?

2) I notice you refer to "LGBT", rather than "GLBT" ... Is that a challenge to/of the systemic patriarchy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #6)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:24 AM

42. You have a strong case.

 

You should defend it rather than dismiss those who disagree with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sulphurdunn (Reply #42)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:27 AM

43. I can recognize when someone is looking for a fight rather than an honest discussion.

And today I don't feel like fighting so I will dismiss the ones who I see potentially making me say things that could get me in trouble.

People looking for a fight won't be convinced and aren't worth it.

Today.

Some days I take the bait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #43)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 05:20 PM

121. +1 ...

 

It gets tiring ... knowing whatever argument made, whatever evidence produced, will be met with the same response: "But that's not how we understand it, Webster says ..." or "We should just agree to disagree."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #121)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 05:29 PM

125. And then it just turns into a snark-fest to see who can get the nastiest dig in.

Nope, not today.

I've had enough of that shit. The guy who was the king of pushing those buttons is gone and the months leading up to his departure and days after made me get way too emotionally involved with assholes. I'm done. Done, done, done. I'll discuss things with people who want to discuss, but I am trying hard to deliberately dismiss those whose one and only real aim is to get a rise out of me. Fuck 'em. Don't need 'em.

Yeah, let's turn to the dictionary for a definition of a topic so deep and so personal. That's such an oversimplification that the only response is correction and moving on. To paraphrase the great poets "Anthrax" -Talking to some is like clapping with one hand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #121)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 11:11 AM

179. +1000000

For most of human history, we 'understood' that the sun revolved around the earth. If there had been dictionaries a thousand years ago, they would have probably defined the sun as 'a large glowing object that orbits the earth'.

But we learned, we grew, and now we know better.

Still, some cling to definitions of racism first written before the Civil Rights movement and the rise of racial studies. The equivalent of clinging to notions of orbital mechanics that predate Copernicus and Galileo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #179)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 11:22 AM

181. Yet, liberals claim to value scholarship ...

 

except when it challenges their beneficial status quo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sulphurdunn (Reply #42)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:41 AM

55. ironclad case is more like it

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #6)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 07:35 PM

144. But if the fundamental underlying assumption of the article can't be questioned

 

then the article is pretty worthless in terms of discussion.

The article isn't asking people to listen and learn. It's asking that people concede the point regardless of the weakness of the premise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kurska (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 10:57 AM

27. Oh Kurska, don't you know that language is meaningless

 

PeaceNikki has as an unspoken premise (a false premise to be sure, and a prime example of "reverse" racism) that only white people are capable of bigotry.

As I read downthread, racism is racism. There is no reverse racism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Android3.14 (Reply #27)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:03 AM

29. I have never stated, nor did the article, that "only white people are capable of bigotry"

And if that's what you got out of it, that's really unfortunate.


I think the larger point isn't the semantics of the word, but the general idea that dismissing the systematic and institutional factors of oppressed groups by trying to counter experiences of others is not helpful.

And this was and is the meat of it to me:

"I need to know what I can do to be a better ally and to make the world a more equal place one interaction at a time. So I observe, I listen, I join the conversation, and I try to understand."

I want to listen and learn and be a better ally to oppressed groups.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #29)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:49 AM

63. "dismissing the systematic and institutional factors of oppressed groups" no one is doing this

What we're doing is dismissing the idea that there needs to be systematic and institutional factors, before something is considered racism.

There are systematic and institutional racists systems (I would consider the justice system one, for obvious reasons), but not every incident of racism requires either of those factors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Android3.14 (Reply #27)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 04:05 PM

109. The poorly made point is that only white people are capable of racism...

 

Anyone can be prejudiced or bigoted...

It's obviously stupid but there it is...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Android3.14 (Reply #27)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 05:27 PM

124. Actually, You've hit on an important point ...

 

language is paramount and the ability to define the terms used is the very basis of what is institutional/structural.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kurska (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:10 AM

34. According to this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11877786

That's one thing many black Americans including myself find frustrating.

It's on the list. Sorry that was posted earlier today so when I saw Webster's reference I had to laugh!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #34)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:15 AM

38. lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #38)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 12:11 PM

73. I couldn't resist

Its just funny because libodem posted it this morning. We have a habit of taking ourselves to seriously at DU.

Knees bending and being jolly are good things!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #34)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:36 AM

52. Again, why is your definition more valid than the definition found in every single dictionary? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kurska (Reply #52)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 12:09 PM

70. See post #35

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5234790

And I'm a "Mulatta" married to a white man so I know more!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kurska (Reply #52)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 12:12 PM

74. Dictionaries only reflect common usage.

Lexicographers try to find out how people are using language and then write down how it's used. Scientists debate how words are used, such as whether the word "planet" applies to Pluto, or what is really rightly called a bug. And Sociologists, as scientists, debate the meaning of words like "racism." I think you'll find that Sociologists agree that racism has to include institutional power. If the definition Sociologists use becomes commonly used by enough people, the dictionary will reflect that, but it can take generations for that kind of change to show up in a dictionary. Especially when the dictionary is part of the institutional structure that includes racism and reflects the usage of a racist society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #34)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 12:10 PM

72. Hee hee. So apropos. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #34)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 05:44 PM

127. Oh great ...

 

Now we're going to have to sit through another round of "there is no such thing as white privilege" derby.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #127)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 07:59 PM

145. Yeppers!

Good times. Good times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #34)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 11:16 AM

180. And the follow-up

9 Clueless things white people do when confronted with racism

Pretty much all on display in this set of threads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #180)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 11:23 AM

182. Yep and we need to keep

Cross posting and referencing these folks.

I read something - it sticks with me. You offend me - I don't forget.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kurska (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 02:31 PM

99. The OP article did not 'make that up'.

Generic dictionaries provide the 'generic definition' of a word as it is used, even if the widespread usage isn't totally accurate. Pick up a textbook in any field - geology, math, sociology, physics, rhetoric, etc, and compare the definitions you find included in glossaries to those you find in dictionaries. In most cases, there will be differences, and the 'generic' dictionary definition will probably be far more generic and overly broad, or even totally different. When you go to your doctor, do you tell him that diabetes means what merriam webster says it does? Or do you let him work by a far more detailed definition that appears in his pathophysiology textbooks?

The reality is that sociologists do indeed say that 'racism' requires power, as opposed to 'bigotry' or 'prejudice' which does not. The fact that regular people (including writers of generic dictionaries) misuse the word 'racism' all the time doesn't actually change how it works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #99)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 09:35 PM

156. Sociologists define two types of racism

 

Individual and institutional. Attempts at discounting individual racism by labeling it, 'generic,' are flat out disingenuous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kurska (Reply #5)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 10:21 AM

173. You hit number 4

4) ďYou [person of color] clearly donít know what racism is. According to Websterís Dictionary...Ē

Donít do it. Step away from this infantilizing situation to avoid being a white person dictating how racism works to a person of color, despite their actual lived experiences with it. As for how Websterís and other dictionaries defines the issue? The oversimplification is a topic that merits an entire thesis.

http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/clueless-things-white-people-say-racism/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #4)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:31 AM

48. No ...

 

Surely individual acts of [strike] racism[/strike] BIGOTRY against white people can and do occur. And they're awful. Horrible.


The rest of your response is correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #48)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:33 AM

50. Thank you. Corrected.

Listening and learning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #48)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:34 AM

51. So, why is your definition of racism better than the one in the dictionary? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kurska (Reply #51)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 05:52 PM

128. Not MY definition ...

 

that is the definition of the social scientists that explore the subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #128)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 05:55 PM

129. You never answered my post up thread. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kurska (Reply #129)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 06:37 PM

135. Which one? The one where you answered ...

 

my critique of the common usage of the term "racism" as institutional, with "For my entire life people have said ..."?

I would have thought my non-response would have given you time to ponder the irony of your statement ... what people have told you is pretty much the definition of what is institutionalize.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #135)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 08:02 PM

147. No I asked you why the definition was actually better than the previous one.

How does it capture an idea that "institutionalized racism" does not and why it is necessary to strip from our language a word that means "racially motivated bigotry that may or may not involve institutional power".

That is the question I wanted an answer to. You keep saying that it should be this way. That it needs to be this way. Apparently having a word that simply means "racially motivated bigotry" is a no can do. It also has to mean "racially motivated bigotry accompanied by institutional power".

I'm asking why.

Again you've looked at only the barest piece of my question, without addressing the substance. I've asked you this 3 times now and you've avoided it every single time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kurska (Reply #147)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 08:08 AM

169. The idea that racism is bigotry + institutional/structural power ...

 

is a refinement of the term based on the body of academic study of the phenomena. It is a more accurate description.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #4)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 08:00 PM

146. This ^^^^^^

is what I learned in political science class in college. I believe it wholeheartedly!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kurska (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 12:27 PM

83. I think the movie

Crown Heights is playing on Encore this month. Don't let Howie Mandel starring in it out you off. He's actually really good!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kurska (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 06:05 PM

131. Oh look, it's Kurska

 

I'll bet nobody saw him coming

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #131)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 12:16 PM

188. Oh boy, that person with the pony avatar

It is nice to see you too buddy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kurska (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 07:01 PM

142. Are you arguing some kind of "tit for tat," or what?

Like one atrocious act somehow cancels out centuries of anti-black racism?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kurska (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 09:46 AM

171. Rosenbaum was targeted because of his minority status (Orthodox Jew)

The riot involved two minority groups, including members of Lubavitcher Orthodox Jews, who dress in a distinctive way. The crowd was chanting, "Jews! Jews! Jews!" and was looking to kill Jews in retaliation for the accident.

This was one minority group in conflict with another. To characterize this horrible incident as "reverse racism" is to seriously rewrite history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kurska (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 11:47 AM

186. It was racism, but not reverse racism

Institutional racism provides a discourse that all groups may use as a means of validating the whole system of racism. Without going into the specifics of the riots, references to the Holocaust are designed to put Jews "in their place," making them looking like weak, unredeemable people who required charity. Making such a reference does not necessarily empower the person saying it so much as affirms the system of racism and the racial hierarchy that it constructs. Indeed, racism thrives because of animosity between minorities, so it is helpful if whites are not the only ones who can spout out and do racist things. It's great for White Racism is Blacks have negative things to say about Jews, Jews have negative things to say about Latinos, Latinos have negative things to say about Asians, etc. Unwittingly, doing so empowers white racism and the logic that puts whites at the top of the social ladder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 09:39 AM

2. I agree that there is no such thing as "reverse racism", and never use the term myself.

Racism is racism, regardless of what race it is directed against.

rac∑ism
ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #2)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:32 AM

49. getting real old

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #2)


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #2)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 06:53 PM

139. Except white people (at least in the U.S.) have never been systematically oppressed or discriminated

against. That's the hole in your argument - trying to draw an equivalency where there really isn't one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 09:39 AM

3. Both racism and sexism are systemic.

I agree. Reverse racism is very likely a backlash projection invented by whites
who don't want to look inward and examine their own attitudes and beliefs.

The hardest part for me is the way the isms are internalized by those who are oppressed.

Women in the media have to look young, often a funny looking kind of blonde, and
plastic; and behave and talk a certain way. They don't look human to me, and I can
barely watch them.

Black women wear the funniest kind of gold in their hair; and all Black people on tv
have to look and act a certain way... and take on certain kinds of roles... very
stereotyped.

I really hate oppression.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ananda (Reply #3)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 10:44 AM

22. externalized by orders from above

 

the same bosses who demand a news anchor adopt a toupee are calling those shots.
dont blame the victim repeatedly for something they are forced to do, even if their jobs
are dirty ones and they hold some culpability for participation.
racism is the backdrop for all of the garbage passed off as comedy these days.
they just have to choose their targets carefully.
and racism runs wild everywhere without a word being said that describes the real effects
on all of us.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ananda (Reply #3)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 06:59 PM

140. "...a backlash projection invented by whites who don't want to look inward..."



And they want to believe "racism goes both ways" or some such feel-good bullshit, because they don't want to accept the reality that some members of society are valued above others, largely based on arbitrary characteristics like skin color.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 09:48 AM

8. It Really Legitimizes a Point of View

when so much effort needs to be put in insisting on separate rules for separate groups.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to On the Road (Reply #8)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 10:41 AM

21. the article is really addressing institutional racism

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 09:58 AM

10. "White people are mean" is a racist statement.

I don't get the term "reverse racism," though.

Racism is racism, be it against whites, African Americans, Chinese, Koreans, etc. And it all sucks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #10)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 10:40 AM

19. there is no reverse institutional racism against white people

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #19)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:15 AM

39. I am assuming that your claim only applies to the USA? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #39)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 04:06 PM

111. yes.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #39)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 11:25 AM

183. I think you could suggest a number of other countries

in which that statement also holds true. Most of Europe, the UK, the former USSR, most of the major English-speaking countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand) and any other country where white people have been in power since the country was formed. And certainly the institutional treatment of the PoC aboriginal cultures in those countries would back up that view.

Although, admittedly, a subset of social scientists DO want to restrict the term racism even further, down to the point where it does only refer to the US, given the specific and overwhelming history of slavery by race, including the automatic slavery of children of slaves by race. But they're still in the minority in the field last I saw.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 10:22 AM

15. We know who it isnt

 

coming unhinged in the face of racism's reality is one way of derailing the discussion.
appeared time for a lynching when something ugly was referenced.
UGLY IS REAL. even when made of disturbed nonsense, it is real, and it is the essence of racism.
Falsehoods perpetrated by Republicans are celebrated here.
The ones that link directly to reality are too disturbing to contemplate.
"oh my beautiful mind. genocide inciting racists!"
this is not a subject that is likely to be discussed when savage attacks result from broaching it.
Even though it is the root of all of our evil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 10:33 AM

17. Racism and sexism are to "affirmative action". . .

. . .what cancer is to a very bad toothache.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 10:39 AM

18. exactly. there is no reverse institutional racism

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 10:41 AM

20. Please be careful, Nikki

When complicated qualifiers are added to a word, "racism" in this case, the word loses its meaning. For if one person can add qualifiers, why then can't another? And then the word ceases to be a word, and becomes a policy tool instead. That's never good.

Here's an example. Consider the word "unemployed". Everyone knows what that word means. Yet the government has added all sorts of complicated qualifiers to that word, to the point that federal unemployment data has become twisted and meaningless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shemp Howard (Reply #20)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 10:47 AM

23. I think the larger point isn't the semantics of the word, but the general idea that

Dismissing the systematic and institutional factors of oppressed groups by trying to counter experiences of others is not helpful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 10:49 AM

24. Simply using the term 'reverse racism' is an acknowledgement by the user that

what s/he means by racism is institutional or structural racism, else there would be no reason to qualify it by using 'reverse.' Sure, there are lots of ways that whites can be the target of personally initiated bigotry. There is currently no way in our culture that whites are targeted by structural racism. That's why there is no such thing as reverse racism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gormy Cuss (Reply #24)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 12:42 PM

92. +1000

 

Good explanation. I don't know why people have such a hard time getting their minds around that concept.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 10:51 AM

25. People often confuse a racist with

racism - racism is institutional - preventing others from being equal by socio-economic and political policies.
On the other hand, racists usually discriminate against a person or persons on an individual level, but racism is a completely different ball-game.

Good read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #25)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:08 AM

33. Are the dictionaries wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #33)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:11 AM

35. It's possible

Last edited Sun Jul 13, 2014, 12:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Aren't they normally published by Plutocrats, Oligarchs and he 1%?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #35)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:29 AM

45. +1000

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #66)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 12:13 PM

76. Great tumblr post there.

+1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #66)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 12:17 PM

80. That's hysterical!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #66)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 12:29 PM

84. lol, thanks for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #66)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 03:39 PM

106. haha, that's perfect. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #66)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 05:20 PM

122. WHOA. Noah Webster was "a hardxcore american nationalist and christian"?

Well that changes everything. No wonder so many DUers object to his dictionary definitions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #122)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 05:59 PM

130. Like you'd care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #66)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 09:22 AM

170. fucking GREAT!!!!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #33)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:42 AM

56. NO - a racist does believe in that doctrine

but it takes policy by persons with authority and power to enforce racism.
A person not liking me because I have African ancestors is a racist, but unless he/she attempts to deny me my 'equal rights', it is discrimination not racism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #33)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 02:40 PM

101. no, but they're too shallow for a full understanding of society.

An encyclopedia is the proper reference book for the greater nuances of society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #25)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 09:54 PM

157. Racism is practiced by racists

 

...whether they be individuals or institutions. Racism is what racists do. To say that racists don't practice racism is ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 10:56 AM

26. Thank you PeaceNikki for trying to educate people today in a concise, thorough and rationally

crafted set of arguments. Whether you will succeed in changing mindsets is another matter; but one can only hope. But before we can change minds, one has to present a rational argument for why the current mindset would need to be changed and you have done so today. So thank you for doing so.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:03 AM

30. when white male Christians start yelling about "reverse racism"

it's because racism and systemic discrimination is losing strength threatening the presumed superiority of white, male, straight Christians.
Of course, my apologies to all decent white male straight Christians who don't feel the necessity of being superior to everyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:08 AM

32. Reverse racism....

You know, to me, that seems like a bunch of Christians complaining to Jews that they were heavily oppressed during world war 2. Or when a black person speaks of the history of slavery and some white guy says, "Yeah, well, one time I got beaten up by some black people, so..."

Does racism exist everywhere? Yeah. Are people of all races, religions, backgrounds and whatnot guilty of it? Absolutely. Reverse racism though? No. Certainly not in the context that it is normally used. It's similar to when an MRA member tells feminists how oppressed men are. Are men oppressed some times? Sure. Are they oppressed some times by women? Yeah. In comparison to misogyny and the history of oppression of women, do they have anything to complain about? No.

We can realize that all forms of racism/sexism/whateverism are wrong and hurtful, without ridiculously absurd analogies and comparisons. When we speak of white people - particularly rich white males, historically speaking, they have had it far better than any other group on the planet. Even now, there really isn't much valid comparison in terms of overall privilege, or the treatment they receive from society in general.

I think that, especially since the creation and popularity of the internet... we are being exposed all the time, to more stories, to more history, to more examples of the suffering and oppression of various peoples of various colors, backgrounds, sexual orientations, religious beliefs and what have you. White people (like myself) are just starting to come to grips with a lot of this. It wasn't truly that long ago that if someone dared say, "White people are assholes, they suck. Especially rich white people!" and their skin color happened to be black... well, you can imagine the response, particularly if these things were said in public.

Yet they are said all the time now, by people of all races - more and more, that gap is starting to shrink, at least in regards to what we have the rights to do or say. The world is beginning to face frightening notions, like the notion that we may all be equal, that, throughout history, the human race (and rich white people in particular - yes, I'm being discriminate and prejudiced here, to make a point) has gotten almost everything wrong in regards to equality, ability, fairness and human rights.

What we are facing now, is the shit that is just beginning to hit the fan - and as a white dude, I can tell you that what frightens a great many of us, is being treated the way that, historically, we have treated others.

Ultimately though... I think the world at large is slowly moving forward into a better place. The time will come when it won't even seem the least bit strange, for black and white children to play together. The time is coming, I think, when anyone who suggests racial superiority of one particular race, will be laughed out of office.

Reverse racism IS bull shit. It is the self defense, psychological mechanism of (generally - white) people who feel guilty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidthegnome (Reply #32)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:12 AM

36. Tim Wise wrote a great piece about it that he republished during the Trayvon Martin murder

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:22 AM

40. There's a lot in there, but right here's the answer to claims of reverse racism:

"There is no system of oppression in America that actively works to oppress and subjugate white people."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:28 AM

44. thank you

 

but for a lot, they have to hang on to their twisted logic about racism for who knows what reason. Shame? Guilt? Just plain racist BS trying to distract and deflect? We'll probably never know as evidenced by the first poster who doesn't know bigotry and hate is not systemic, institutionalized racism created by cultural and social constructs.

Your attempt is, once again, admirable and true, yet many people cannot see it, but thanks again. This type of truth has to be kept out there to keep the 'racism enablers' in check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #44)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:30 AM

46. I truly and honestly strive to be a better ally to PoC, LGBT and the poor.

I am a white woman who has experienced her share of sexism. I try very hard not to dismiss real experiences that I have not had but know full well they are real and that I can and should learn from them.

I see people getting stuck on the word rather than the larger point of trying harder to listen and learn and that's unfortunate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:31 AM

47. Of course there is no reverse racism,

racism doesn't have to be the opposite of anything to be racism. Nor does it have to be systemic or institutionalized to be racism.

Reverse racism would be what? The opposite of racism? Equal and opposite racism? That would be two racists not a racist and a reverse racist, and if you have two racist which would be the racist and which would be the reverse racist. Or are they both at the same time? Racism is completely comfortable as a one way vehicle.

It is entirely possible for a single person, unsupported by any group or government to be a racist.

Skin color usually is involved but is not necessary, study the early history of the Irish in America for an example. Racism doesn't even have to be accompanied by discrimination although it usually is if it is large scale. But it can also just be an individual decision to not hire a person or sell them a house because of racism.

The title of the article is misleading and has little to do with what the article is actually about, I think the author is confused about the subject and its various forms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #47)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:44 AM

60. one is a racist taking advantage of

 

and applying their perceived 'white privilege', created by social and culturally systemic constructs, on someone non-white. One is a bigot applying hate. Huge difference, huge!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:43 AM

58. I think there's a lot of arguing

 

over apples and oranges here. Obviously, institutional racism with a big "R" exists both overtly, covertly and often unintentionally. Racism with a little "r" also exists and is expressed through individual behavior regardless of relative power and may or may not be a conscious act. It might be better defined as racial bigotry. I believe white privilege exists, but I think it is more a by product of keeping people of color down than of intentionally lifting whites up, especially lower class whites.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sulphurdunn (Reply #58)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 11:54 AM

65. rarely unintentional

 

in my experience(s).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #65)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 12:35 PM

88. I agree

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 12:02 PM

68. I believe racism has enjoyed a resurgence in this country due to the demonization of

poor people (code for blacks on Fox and other RW media). Because the majority of Americans are suffering more during these times, including whites, the RW media have given them a group to displace their anger and fear on. This insidious practice of blaming the poor, minorities, immigrants, and a "black" President for the situation we have found ourselves in, instead of the ones who created the situation; Wall Street, Big Business, and RW billionaires has ratcheted up the level of racism to levels not seen in 40-50 years.

The other thing that allows this to happen is that segregation is environmental. Groups tend to gravitate together making it rare for one group to really know what the other group has to deal with. Humans naturally want to segregate themselves and feel like their group is somehow better than any others. We separate ourselves by race, religion, and economic stratification to name a few, so we don't "walk a mile in the other's shoes" which would lead to better understanding.

When I entered the 6th grade our town supposedly desegregated. In reality, little changed except that I was one of a very few white kids required to go to school in an all black community. The "desegregated" school had been 100% black and was now 95% black, 3% white and 2% other. I learned that my name was "White Boy" and had the crap beat out of me several times. When a white kid at the end of my street was beaten so badly he was a "vegetable," we moved. My year there could have led me to go one of two ways. I could hate them for how they treated me, or I could learn that racism is so wrong no matter who it was being persecuted.

I made several friends at that school and learned that black kids wanted pretty much the same things that I did, but had much bigger hurdles. When I transferred to the mostly white Junior High in the same school district, with the same curriculum, I saw that I was about 10 chapters behind in every subject. The other very stark difference was that at the white school everything worked (projectors, lockers...) and was new or almost new. At the black school they didn't get shit except the hand-me-downs from the white school. The teachers wanted to be there while at the black school they got the teachers who sucked and didn't care.

I learned that racism is wrong and that I didn't like to be persecuted anymore than they did. I saw that they did not have the same opportunities as I did, first hand. The blacks wanted retribution for their treatment from us new white students, and while I certainly didn't like it, I understood it. If we would actually walk a mile in the other's shoes it would lead to a better understanding of the situation and the propaganda would not work. That's never going to happen, unfortunately.

There is one controversial thing I will say that must be said that I witnessed over and over at that school, and that my wife experienced all throughout school (she is black and has a Masters Degree in Cross Cultural Studies), many black kids at school would attack other black kids that did well in school, accusing them of "you trying to be white!" I saw kids who were beaten by their fathers for the crime of trying to be smarter than them. Many black kids would brag about how many F's they got on their report cards with no worry that their parents would be upset. These kids would still be in the minority, but not by a lot. In a seemingly hopeless situation, grades did not seem to matter. They did not know many black professionals and the area was one of extreme poverty so I will not say this behavior exists in all black schools, but it does in really poor ones. Poor smart white students don't face the same problem of other poor whites trying to drag them down.

While the black community needs to address this problem in their own community, by far the biggest problem facing them is institutional racism from whites who have no clue about the black community and form their opinions from the RW propaganda which is designed to make them angry and afraid. When I hear racists shit from other whites (happens all of the time here in S.E. Texas), I try to explain everything that I have laid out here (except for the paragraph immediately above this one). Sometimes they shut up, sometimes they double down, but I know they will remember what I have said and I hope it reduces their racists attitudes in the future.

Apologize for length, but this experience was a major turning point in my life and reinforced my living by the Golden Rule.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #68)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 12:10 PM

71. Don't apologize.

I was seeking a good discussion and you've added a lot to it.

On my phone so a short but sincere reply for now...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #68)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 12:40 PM

91. Excellent shared experience

Thank you! This adds to the discussion. All I have left are one liners filled with acerbic derision ever since the Trayvon Martin murder trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 12:13 PM

77. I have NEVER understood how anyone can believe in "reverse racism"

It's on of the most ridiculous concepts ever invented, it in self is based on a number of lies, it manipulates words and actions of a oppressed people to make a false point, it uses false equivalencies to draw false analogies.

In other words it's a streaming pile of dog shit, the more it gets on your shoes, the worse it smells.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #77)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 12:37 PM

89. not really

at least not in that there is reverse racism. It isn't just anti-white, it can be black on hispanic, or hispanic on black, or asian on black, etc etc.

Racism is not ONLY institutional and there are places in America where the minority is the majority and there is institutional racism.

Having said that, talking about reverse racism is kind of like talking about the Washington Generals beating the Globetrotters. Yeah, it happens, but the reverse happens 100 times more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qazplm (Reply #89)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 04:06 PM

110. If you take racism as a concept

And follow history, I think you'll see what I'm mean. I once took a class where the prof thought that modern racism could be traced to the English defeat of the Spanish Armada-- interesting theory, but the point being American Racism had had it's own journey, is unique in it's own way, as opposed to the fear of difference that seems to have always existed with origins in the fear of the other

American Blacks are huge recipients of this, as are Latinos (who actually out number Blacks at this time) but African Americans have become unwilling symbols of racism. Take any oppressed or objectified group, and you will find arguments comparing it to the African American experience of racism. While this might be acceptable in a legal sense, I don't find it acceptable in the personal sense. However, I'm white and can't speak for POC.

Now, drop my white ass in the middle of China, and if I experience racism, It would be nice to say it's 'pure' racism, I'm not the dominant culture or color. Bit it's still leaving out a hell of a lot of history and western, white influences--but at least it won't be American racism

Here's a short interesting article:
by George M. Fredrickson

Racism exists when one ethnic group or historical collectivity dominates, excludes, or seeks to eliminate another on the basis of differences that it believes are hereditary and unalterable. An ideological basis for explicit racism came to a unique fruition in the West during the modern period. No clear and unequivocal evidence of racism has been found in other cultures or in Europe before the Middle Ages. The identification of the Jews with the devil and witchcraft in the popular mind of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was perhaps the first sign of a racist view of the world. Official sanction for such attitudes came in sixteenth century Spain when Jews who had converted to Christianity and their descendents became the victims of a pattern of discrimination and exclusion.

The period of the Renaissance and Reformation was also the time when Europeans were coming into increasing contact with people of darker pigmentation in Africa, Asia, and the Americas and were making judgments about them. The official rationale for enslaving Africans was that they were heathens, but slave traders and slave owners sometimes interpreted a passage in the book of Genesis as their justification. Ham, they maintained, committed a sin against his father Noah that condemned his supposedly black descendants to be "servants unto servants." When Virginia decreed in 1667 that converted slaves could be kept in bondage, not because they were actual heathens but because they had heathen ancestry, the justification for black servitude was thus changed from religious status to something approaching race. Beginning in the late seventeenth century laws were also passed in English North America forbidding marriage between whites and blacks and discriminating against the mixed offspring of informal liaisons. Without clearly saying so, such laws implied that blacks were unalterably alien and inferior.

During the Enlightenment, a secular or scientific theory of race moved the subject away from the Bible, with its insistence on the essential unity of the human race. Eighteenth century ethnologists began to think of human beings as part of the natural world and subdivided them into three to five races, usually considered as varieties of a single human species. In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, however, an increasing number of writers, especially those committed to the defense of slavery, maintained that the races constituted separate species.

The Nineteenth century was an age of emancipation, nationalism, and imperialism--all of which contributed to the growth and intensification of ideological racism in Europe and the United States. Although the emancipation of blacks from slavery and Jews from the ghettoes received most of its support from religious or secular believers in an essential human equality, the consequence of these reforms
More: http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-02-01.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #77)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 05:17 PM

120. +1. The term "reverse racism" is absurd (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #77)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 10:17 AM

172. Same people who believe in the War on Christmas

 

and think misandry is a huge problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 12:18 PM

81. INSTITUTIONAL Racism is systemic. Individual Racism is, well, individual.

 

Here is the definition of "Racism":

rac∑ism
ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

Here is one definition of "Institutional Racism":

Definition: Institutional racism refers to racism perpetrated by government entities such as schools, the courts or the military. Unlike the racism perpetrated by individuals, institutional racism has the power to negatively affect the bulk of people belonging to a racial group.

Racism needs to be understood as it occurs with/against an individual and as it occurs in a societal context.

As far as the term in the OP- Reverse Racism- I dislike it immensely because it clouds the issue and seems to be used by white bigots at any opportunity to justify their crappy behavior and undeserved privilege.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #81)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 12:26 PM

82. I think the dictionary definition has been addressed well upthread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #82)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 12:35 PM

87. You are being pedantic. There is great benefit in pointing out institutional racism is

 

built into society and different than any individual instance of racist behavior or attitudes.

As for "reverse racism" I think it's also of benefit to point out the absurdity of using "reverse" in any context.

A racist is a racist based on their beliefs and behavior.

Racism is based upon societal/group power.

Using your logic- all white people are racISTS because they benefit from institutional racISM.

"Ism" carries with it the implication of group or school or collective.

ABOUT THE SUFFIX "ISM"-
-ism

Used to form the name of a system, school of thought or theory based on the name of its subject or object or alternatively on the name of its founder

Used to form names of a tendency of behaviour, action or opinion belonging to a class or group of persons; the result of a doctrine, ideology or principle.

Used to form names of ideologies expressing belief in the superiority of a certain class within the concept expressed by the root word, or a pattern of behavior or a social norm that benefits members of the group indicated by the root word. ((based on a late 20th-century narrowing of the "terms for a doctrine" sense)
racism (1932), sexism (1936), classism (1971), speciesism (1975), heterosexism (1979), ableism (1981)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #87)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 12:47 PM

94. This is why it seems weird to me to use the word "racist" as a noun at all

Everyone is a part of our racist society, and anyone can do things that help that racist society along, and if they do it enough I can see why people use the word as a noun for them I guess, but I really think the word seems to work best as an adjective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 12:35 PM

85. I do not believe all racism has to come from a position of power.

 

I also believe racism can be a personal thing and does not need to be institutional.

The only time I recall being a possible victim of racism was when I was walking with my brother in Washington D.C. when we were teens and were racially taunted by a large group of black young people in their 20s. We were near the National Museum of History, it was in the afternoon, and while we were a little disturbed by what happened, we were never afraid of being harmed. (We were a couple of teens from rural Minnesota. There were only two black students in our small high school.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 12:44 PM

93. PoC - People of Color... Because white people are colorless.

Personally, I've always cringed at the term... breeds too much dissociation between folks. Colorful and colorless are more like personality traits than genetic outcomes, to me at least. In truth, I've never seen a white person and I've never seen a black person, but I've seen a whole lot of shades of brown. However, that's probably too literal for those who need to make black and white distinctions just to keep their world in order.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gtar100 (Reply #93)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 06:35 PM

134. what's your preference? are you familiar with the etymology of the phrase?

Person of color (plural: people of color; persons of color) is a term used primarily in the United States to describe any person who is not white. The term is meant to be inclusive among non-white groups, emphasizing common experiences of racism. People of color was introduced as a preferable replacement to both non-white and minority, which are also inclusive, because it frames the subject positively; non-white defines people in terms of what they are not (white), and minority frequently carries a subordinate connotation.[1] Style guides for writing from American Heritage,[2] the Stanford Graduate School of Business,[3] Mount Holyoke College,[4] recommend the term over these alternatives. It may also be used with other collective categories of people such as students of color, men of color and women of color.

Although the term citizens of color was used by Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1963, and other uses date to as early as 1793, people of color did not gain prominence for many years.[6][7] Influenced by radical theorists like Frantz Fanon, racial justice activists in the U.S. began to use the term people of color in the late 1970s and early 1980s. By the late 1980s and early 1990s, it was in wide circulation.[8] Both anti-racist activists and academics sought to move understandings of race beyond the black-white binary then prevalent.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_color

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 12:48 PM

95. I love how people want to redefine racism.

Sorry, but I'm sticking with the dictionary definition.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism?s=t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to area51 (Reply #95)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 12:51 PM

96. And I dislike the way so many are so stuck on the term/word that that ignore the larger

message.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #96)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 07:54 AM

168. This thread is depressing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #168)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 11:10 AM

178. It truly is. I expected some deflection/diversion, but not as much as I see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #178)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 11:41 AM

184. I think that the problem is the title.

It's intended to elicit an emotional response... but it isn't the most honest way to start the conversations.

I could start a thread titled "Why PeaceNikki isn't Real"... and then go on to twist the definitions of my terms so that they didn't really mean that you weren't real.

I doubt you would see as much conflict in the thread if the title were something like:

"While reverse racism certainly exists - and is just as repulsive as the more common flavor - it isnt as pervasive and institutionalized and thus calls for individual solutions rather than institutionalized/legislated solutions" - but who would read that article?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to area51 (Reply #95)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 10:48 AM

176. And there's number 4 again in this thread

4) ďYou clearly donít know what racism is. According to Websterís Dictionary...Ē

Donít do it. Step away from this infantilizing situation to avoid being a white person dictating how racism works to a person of color, despite their actual lived experiences with it. As for how Websterís and other dictionaries defines the issue? The oversimplification is a topic that merits an entire thesis.

http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/clueless-things-white-people-say-racism/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 02:00 PM

98. Racism exists when someone

 

...judges another based upon their skin color. Institutional racism exists when prejudice+power combine to form social constructs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 02:51 PM

102. In my experience people with weak arguments tend to debate semantics

Thus you see in this post a running battle of the definition of racism instead of talking about the deeper meaning behind the OP. To equate 400 years of a system designed to relegate a race of people as inferior to any action, no matter how horrific, perpetrated by someone fron the no dominant culture is ludicrous. I am a white man with three biracial children. My ex wife is black. I am a school teacher and she is a nurse. Solidly middle class as our our children. That does not stop the police from stopping my 6'3" 220lb son constantly while driving. It doesn't stop security from following my son and daughters through a store while shopping. How many white parents have black police officers stopping their children repeatedly for driving while white?

Like it or not there is an advantage to being white in America. Laws are not applied the same, criminal sentencing is not applied the same. And it takes far longer to correct a mindset that has been forged over hundreds of years.

I think the OP has a valid point. Can others be discriminated against? Yes!! Is it the same? No!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wcast (Reply #102)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 05:44 AM

166. You nailed it

The folks that throw up the semantic and linguistic arguments never seem to want to discuss the actual experience. Or they will use your point about your son to expound on drug sentencing laws. Or they will tell you they stole a piece of candy when they were five and they now deserve to be followed in stores. I could go on and on and on . . . But it will fall on blind eyes.

Calabrese saying- The blind man says one day we'll see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #166)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 06:58 AM

167. Great quote! You are so right.

I was going to add more but luckily ran out of time as, like you said, it wouldn't matter. I spent ten years teaching adjudicated youth and that was one of the first lessons I learned in discussing any subject. They would pick one point they thought they could win, no matter how trivial, and hammer that point until you refute it, and then go onto another without missing a beat. I learned to stay on point real quick and it's helped me no matter who I debate.

The other tactic is to put others on the defensive. I noticed that many who tried to defend the OP got stuck defending the narrative put in place by the detractors, so even the ones who wanted to further the discussion got sucked into talking about the literal definition of racism.

I'll have to say I was surprised by how quickly this devolved into an argument about how whites suffer racism too, but I shouldn't have been. Here is an interesting article on how white fear of becoming a minority triggers a rightward political swing. http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/04/10/studies-show-whites-made-conservative-fears-becoming-racial-minority/

Cheers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 03:13 PM

103. She lost it in the second paragraph...

 

What she is talking about is institutional racism.... which is of course a type of racism and a smaller subset of the concept as a whole.

She is right that reverse racism isn't a thing though.

Racism is the belief that a person or a group is inferior based on skin color or that your group is superior for the same reason. That's it...

If you don't like someone because they are of X ethnicity (white, black, eskimo etc.. etc....) then you are a racist.

Easy peasy...

This new drive to add all these qualifiers come across as a justification why it is ok for some people to be racist but not others. "Oh, it's ok... It's not racist, just prejudiced"

*yawn*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hofbrau (Reply #103)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 04:44 PM

114. It is a self serving definition

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 03:55 PM

107. there's no such thing as "reverse racism"

Racism is racism regardless of the race. Yes, if someone is a racist against white people than they are a racist, not a "reverse racist"

Technically, a "reverse racist" is someone that isn't racist against anyone.

It's a stupid phrase that gives the false appearance that while people can't victims of racism when they most certainly can and it's hardly very rare.

Why anyone cares what race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., etc. someone is has always baffled me. Cripes sake, we're all just people. Bigotry is so stupid. It makes no sense to judge anyone because they can be described as belonging to "group X" (whatever that group is).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TorchTheWitch (Reply #107)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 04:25 PM

112. +1 (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 04:53 PM

116. I can't believe we still have to discuss this

On a liberal board, we should all understand racism, even if we haven't experienced it ourselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wryter2000 (Reply #116)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 05:12 PM

119. No shit

Is very weird

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wryter2000 (Reply #116)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 12:32 AM

160. +1.

Lots of people twisting themselves into knots in this thread, for some reason. Racism is really not that difficult to understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 07:00 PM

141. Racism is a individual trait.

One person that feel superior to another race is a racist. Racism does not require any sort of system in place. But the system makes racism MUCH worse for the oppressed race.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)

Sun Jul 13, 2014, 09:01 PM

153. There is no "reverse racism" because the reverse of racism isn't someone else being a bigot too.

The expression is stupid by all definitions and therefore the gnashing of teeth of stupid racists trying to reach for something to hold old to to excuse their bullshit.

As far as the definition goes as these things usually go with me - makes perfect sense but I am in "wonderful" position to get it and so it insists on an automatic failure to communicate with the audience most in need of hearing it, those who are not.

In this case I'd suggest that a term like race bigot be equally pushed if folks are determined to advance this definition, probably get less push back and waste less time explaining yourself if the audience is provided a definition for the concept in their head that you are redefining.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 12:29 AM

159. "I think asians are harder working and smarter than whites" is edgy, cheeky and fun.

 

"I think asians are harder working and smarter than hispanics" is racist and intolerable.

Neither of the above are "reverse racism"; there's nothing reverse about it, it's all one thing. Only the outcomes and the home team are different.

You say "it isn't real", and then explain yourself by making it clear that what you meant to say is that "it doesn't matter".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)

Mon Jul 14, 2014, 01:44 PM

191. Bugs, berries, and boats

In common speech, bugs are creepy crawlies, berries are small fruit, and boats are things that you ride on in the water.

In technical terms, 'bug' refers specifically to the insect order containing cicadas and aphids, berries are fleshy fruits produced from a single plant ovary, and boats are vessels small enough to be carried on another vessel.

By narrowing the definition, botanists, entomologists, and sailors are able to be more precise about their meaning within a discussion of their peers, but it would be unreasonable (not to mention futile) to attempt to push these definitions onto society to the exclusion of all other definitions.

Do you think you could ever enforce upon the general public the idea that strawberries, cherries, raspberries, and mulberries are not berries, but that bananas, tomatoes, and avocados are? I don't, and the subject of berries is certainly less emotionally charged than that of racial bigotry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread