Questions about "institutional racism" and the "only whites can be racist" thing...

[SayWhatYo]

Now, I'm not really interested in debating whether or not that's a valid statement or not... I'm more interested in understanding how it works in countries that are not 'white dominated', or controlled, I suppose. Say, China or maybe India. Does the same type of "rules" apply there but for the "dominate" race? Or is it still the whites who have ultimate power and control in the world, thus making them the only ones who can ultimately be racist(in terms of institutional racism, please don't go off on a rant about how all races can be racist or whatever... I understand that debate and agree that trying to change the definition of a word causes too much confusion)

Also, when does institutional racism cease to be an issue? Like what would have to be done in the US for it to be considered a non-issue? Like as in specifics actions or goals that would have be reached.

I've been reading various papers and articles on this, and they left me with questions... If you're very sensitive about such subjects, I'm sorry, it's not my goal to piss anyone off. I am simply trying to expand my knowledge and understanding.

[illinoisprogressive]

1. My mother is from France and there was alot of racism towards people

from the middle east. Not like here with the good ol boy form of it. It was more silent and spoken in whispers.
But, the sterotyping of arabians as being dishonest and having knives to stab people with is very much like here in the united states.

[treestar]

2. Everyone has equal rights under the law in the US

Except the gays not being able to marry.

Once the legal barrier is removed, it is more of a culture war. I don't subscribe a lot to the idea that the descendants of discriminatory whites owe the descendants of those discriminated against. It just creates ill will and punishes people collectively and exacerabates any leftover racism.

I think only very few 21st century whites would be racist and what is left in those average people is just resentment at being guilted for the actions of people long dead who happened to be of the same race.

[kwassa]

21. This is historically nonsensical.

treestar:
"Once the legal barrier is removed, it is more of a culture war."

Completely false, and somewhat bizarre. Those legal barriers created economic barriers of hundreds of years that are difficult to overcome without assistance over time. Changing laws did nothing in and of itself to change behavior, including the slow and reluctant enforcement of the new laws. The idea that removing a legal barrier will change hundreds of years of social practice is naive. What has changed social practice is activist federal enforcement, and nothing else.

"I don't subscribe a lot to the idea that the descendants of discriminatory whites owe the descendants of those discriminated against. It just creates ill will and punishes people collectively and exacerabates any leftover racism."

But what if it is the morally correct thing to do? We as a society have a collective responibility to create equity for all citizens, including those who are suffering the economic hardships created by the historical legacy of racism.

"I think only very few 21st century whites would be racist and what is left in those average people is just resentment at being guilted for the actions of people long dead who happened to be of the same race."

I think the personal experience of many people of color in the United States will tell you that you are wrong. What possible personal experience can you have of racism, if you are not black? Your thoughts are your own, but you are in no position to know, are you?

[Rabrrrrrr]

3. Interesting question - and one with a difficult and nuanced answer.

if one were to do it full justice.

But I would say that, if we want to look at the entire world as a whole, it's still only whites - and specifically, American whites, who would be the only racists.

Of course, every other group has its own racist tendencies, as you point out, and as any intelligent person should readily admit - but, the US is, in most respects, the most powerful in terms of military, economic, and political power, in the world, and so we are in a unique spot to be able to be racist to EVERYONE in the world. And for the most part, we are - even to white Europe, we are still racist.

Though if China ever calls its debt and becomes the most powerful, they will become the most racist nation and race.

As to your "what would have to be done to end institutional racism in the US" to make it a non-issue, I have no idea. That's a powerfully good question to ask. And I wonder if only non-whites would be able to answer that.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. No, that's not what racism means.

Racism has nothing whatsoever to do with power. It's entirely possible for a penniless drunk in the street with no power whatsoever to be extremely racist. Racism is found among all cultures, to some degree or another; less so among most western white subcultures than among many others.

If you want to define a new concept which is a function both of racial prejudice and power, and draw conclusions based on that, then fair enough. But that's not what racism is.

[kwassa]

17. Many disagree with you.

You are working with an older definition of racism, because it is far more recognized now that the power to affect the lives of others is a key component of racism, particularly institutional racism. To consider issues of racism properly, that element of power is foremost.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

48. Many?

I'm sure the number of people who disagree with me is a relatively large one, because there are so many people, but as a fraction it's very small, and mine is the lexicographically correct definition.

The only people who disagree with me are those who use of language is motivated more by their desire to make it support their own agendas than to use it correctly.

My definition certainly is older, but it hasn't been superceded in any way.

Incidentally, I don't entirely disagree with the claim that to consider *issues* of racism one has to discuss power. But that just means that you've got to talk about racism *and* power, not that you can unilaterally redefine racism to include power.

[NuttyFluffers]

49. incorrect. all my class, prof, books, use the "new" def. of racism.

i have yet to see a book, class, or professor use in any of my social sciences, or even humanities (such as art history, etc.) that uses this outdated definition of racism in a professional context, except for those that are copyrighted around 1950s and before -- and these exceptions are looked at as adorable immature/early understandings of institutions and social technology. sort of like when we look at phrenology or eugenics in several of my classes. this is corroberated with over 10 years of higher education and 3 different schools just for me personally. and i have corroborated this along with my peers, which adds a considerable number of schools and years to this to display a very real change in the professional usage of this word. atop this is the conferences i (as an observer), my professors, my peers (some as presenters), and various museum/social events have attended in the usage of this "new" (ahem) definition of racism. colloquial vernacular has always been understood to be something that cannot be easily changed or educated, so a grace has been alloted to those who are "catching up" to the "new" definition of racism. so we try not to take it seriously when non-professionals get all puffy when we correct them; we tend to inform once and then let it drop.

just FYI. :hi:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

52. Oh dear.

That a small, inwards-looking, self-appointed subculture of so-called "professionals" have taken it upon themselves to use a word to mean something other than its standard usage does not count for very much, I'm afraid - especially not in a discipline so faddish and inconsequential, where they will doubtless change again shortly.

I'm a mathematician, but I wouldn't dream of claiming that words like "set", "derivative" or "function" actually mean what I use them to mean professionally.

"All the boys but my Johnny are marching out of step"...

[NuttyFluffers]

57. well, jargon is what jargon is, y'know.

all professions have them. and a certain level of technical jargon proficiency is expected when someone wants to authoritatively state something. but, it's also good to recognize that it is important to understand what laymen speak and note if they are being unfairly manipulated by propagandists taking advantage of their lack of technical expertise. kinda like the whole "theory" debate we've been seeing in our culture. but you only comment so far before you back off, though. people tend to get quite testy and defensive... ;)

[malaise]

15. Correct

Much of what is called racism is indeed discrimination. For me, the systemic(socio-economic and political) exclusion of people based on color is racism. Anyone may prefer her or his own race (and even dislike the other), but when they deny 'the other(s)' socio-economic, political, techological, etc. rights based on her/his color, that is racism.

[AngryAmish]

24. China can't "call in it's debt"

US debt is financed through t-bills. They are bonds that have a set interest payment schedule then a lump sum due when the bond matures. They are payable only in dollars, not gold or pretzels. If China says "we want our money right f'n now" then no one would ever sell them a bond again - and China needs somewhere interest bearing to park their money. So what if China manipulates their currency to "crash" the dollar? Then they get paid back with devalued dollars - a net plus for the US. If we really wanted to we could just print the greenbacks (or its electronic equivalent) again devaluing the currency, causing inflation and paying them back with less valuable currency.

Sorry for the rant but facts are facts. China cannot and has no interest in calling in their debt.

[rockymountaindem]

42. Yep

It took me awhile to get educated on this issue, but you're correct. Thanks for pointing it out.

[ecstatic]

4. Institutional racism refers to a wide reaching set of traditions and customs that discriminate

(whether intentionally or unintentionally) against a certain minority. Like for instance, the proven disparity in the treatment of blacks vs. whites when applying for a home mortgage (even when the black person's score is equal or higher than the white persons!!). We can argue all day and all night about how far we've come in this country, but there's nothing more eye opening than reading the cold hard facts/statistics on the disparities that still exist in many aspects of life here in the U.S.

Institutional racism involves power, and at the end of the day, it wreaks way more havoc than a lone racist waving the confederate flag and/or yelling out racial slurs.

[silverojo]

5. Asians are massively racist (in Asia, at least)

White people are accepted as visitors, but if they marry a Japanese, the couple becomes the target of a lot of racism. I have a Japanese friend who's married to an American, and she says they've been spit upon, she's been called a bitch and worse on the trains, etc.

The Japanese are also very prejudiced against Koreans who live in Japan, though that's starting to change a bit. "Hallyu" (the Korean wave of entertainment sweeping Asia and moving toward the rest of the world) has helped a lot in changing the Japanese perception of Koreans, as they become big fans of Korean singers, dramas, actors, etc. Pop star BoA was in her teens when she was selected to perform at a soccer match between Japan and Korea, because they felt her popularity in both nations would help prevent clashes between the two sets of fans. (And yes, it worked!)

You can go on with the Chinese, Taiwanese (the Taiwanese aboriginal people are NOT Asian), etc. Where the Asians are the dominant race, white people are definitely not the ones who "have ultimate power and control in the world".

I suppose there are similar situations where black people are the majority too. I have a friend in Zimbabwe, and he says there is a lot of prejudice against white people. He's been attacked on more than one occasion by blacks motivated by racism.

And let's not even get started on the brand of racism being pounded into the heads of Mexicans--their hatred of whites, Jews, and blacks causes a lot of tension in schools where Mexicans outnumber other races.

So no, white people aren't the only ones capable of racism. Racism basically takes place wherever any race outnumbers another. Just an ugly aspect of human nature, I guess. :(

[geardaddy]

39. Yep.

Wow, you just brought back a lot of memories on this one.

In Taiwan, you've got three groups of Han Chinese who hate each other, namely the "Mainlanders" (mostly Nationalists and refugess who came to Taiwan in and and after 1949 and were the power-holders until the late '90s) are hated by the "Taiwanese" (people who are Han and arrived from Fujian Province several centuries ago and who make up nearly 90% of the population), and everyone hates the "Hakka" (Han's who were the first non-native people to arrive in Taiwan). Then there's the nine native aboriginal Taiwanese who are not Han, but more closely related to the Maoris who are horribly discriminated against by the "Taiwanese," but not in conflict with the "Mainlanders" or the "Hakka".

[lvx35]

6. the "only whites can be racist" bit is naive American BS.

Most other countries aren't nearly as self obsessed, so they've noticed the genocide and ethnic cleansing in the last decade has included all kinds of people. The genocide in Darfur for instance doesn't involve whites at all, but its ethnic.

Going to any country will reveal wonderful people, and racists of the local dominant race. In Japan, for instance, whites simply aren't to go in certain places...That hasn't occured in the US since segragation.

[malaise]

16. Systemically

white racism (the white man's so called burden) has had the most lasting impact on humanity to date, but there is racism in Southern Africa, India, China, Korea, and several other places on this planet.

[Hoping4Change]

43. It is more than a stretch to say that white racism has more impact

than any other. I would argue that India's caste system, in place for thousands of years and based on colour, has adversely affected millions of people and still is. The problem is not about race it is about class interests.

The Guardian ran a interesting story about the newly minted Chinese Colonialism reporting that African workers are lamenting Chinese management in newly opened factories claiming that British factories provided better working conditions.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,,2005902,00.html


"The new wave of Chinese interest was again greeted with enthusiasm as an alternative to western governments that preach free trade and investment but provide little of either. China is also giving African countries billions of dollars in aid without the political and economic strings attached by the west, and building roads, hospitals and stadiums across the continent. Workers at Zambia's struggling copper mines cheered when Chinese companies bought them up, but the relationship soured as miners grew resentful over what they said were harsher and less safe working conditions for lower pay than in the many other foreign-owned mines.


snip

"Chinese people can stand very hard work. This is a cultural difference. Chinese people work until they finish and then rest. Here they are like the British, they work according to a plan. They have tea breaks and a lot of days off. For our construction company that means it costs a lot more," he said. "

[Greyhound]

44. That is a myth, one example, India, has engaged in its brand of institutional racism.

(as long as we've decided to throw out the proper definition of the term), the caste system, for thousands of years, to the detriment of its millions. All of the Asian nations/cultures have been practicing it as well, since long before the white race was relevant. The Native Americans engaged in it, as have the various African cultures.

It is nearly universal, and always has been.

[patrice]

7. I believe that would be "dominent" race.

"dominate" is the verb form. You want the adjective.

[IntravenousDemilo]

8. Then perhaps we want "dominant".

...wow...

[patrice]

9. Yes thanks, I should have looked it up first. n/t

[rebel with a cause]

10. Wow oh wow!

Let me see if I can state this in the best manner I can and let the flaming begin. The ideals I represent here are due to studies done on racism and experiences I have had with those not from this country.

Institutional racism refers to laws/rules/glass ceilings/other types of institutional obstacles that have been set in place that enable some to achieve the best results. In other words, in the USA it is the white male who has the best opportunity to achieve the highest positions and etc. In other countries it would be the group that holds the power there, or as it is in many third world countries - the Americans and their lackeys. When institutional racism will no longer be an issue will be when we have non-whites and women in positions of power equal with or more so than white males, not the exception. Look at your media for an example of where the power lies. Look at your government for an example of where the power lies. Look at your corporations for an example of where the power lies. When you look at all three of these things and do not see an overwhelming majority of the faces white and male, then we can talk about there not being any institutional racism.

Only whites can be true racist when whites hold the power because power is necessary to carry out true racism. In countries where those in power are not white, then this rule changes. But in many cases it is ethnocentrism and not racism that is practiced by those in power, since those they dominate are of other ethnic groups and not seen as different "races". "Racial" identity and differences was an Europeans invention and that of their descendent's. It was designed to set them/us apart from and superior to those with darker skin. The idea of the lighter skin representing superiority was spread through colonization. India is a colonized country, as are many others. Some countries have practiced the whitening of their people in order to hold a higher status on the world stage, and by doing this it is a form of racism but where do we lay the blame? Europe and the United States are the colonizers and the ones that have spread this message.

Genocides can be carried out due to racism but they also can be carried out because of the history between two tribes, greed for land, and other reasons. Things are not easily answered on the world scene, because not all countries and groups hold the same ideals/values as we do and so cannot be judged by the same rules. Don't get me wrong, genocide is wrong. It always has been, but to say that all genocides are done due to racism is too simple of a conclusion. Hatred is sometimes more complicated than what we would like it to be.

A few years ago I did a study on the international identity formed by immigrants to this country from an island that had been occupied by the United States military quite often over the last two hundred years. The study showed that the identity of these people, including the racial identity, was influenced by these occupations and their "Americanization" began long before they came to this country. Racism was strong on the island, and the "whitening" of those in power was done in many ways. A saying on the island was that money and power whitened. Those with the darkest of skin was considered to be foreigners and not accepted. The islander's African heritage was denied, and they called themselves European and Indian (which they did have an heritage of also). Now would you call these people racist because they tried to live up to the American ideal that was brought to their island by the military occupiers? I don't know. I know that the people in power who killed those who they saw as inferior were racist. But I just don't know how to feel about the people who were taught the only way to succeed was to be white, and that is the lesson that has been spread across the world.

Sorry to all those that this offends.

[IntravenousDemilo]

12. I understand there's even INTRAracial discrimination within the African American community

based on skin tone -- by lighter-skinned blacks against the darker-skinned. Is this true?

With that in mind, I'm not sure how many people realize just how unimportant skin colour is as a marker of human physical variation, when one considers such more vital elements as body structure, stature, metabolism, and predilection towards certain genetic ailments (e.g. sickle cell anaemia, which has a high incidence in Pygmy tribes). There is actually a greater difference between Pygmies and Tutsis, both black peoples from central Africa, than between Tutsis and Scandinavians. Nevertheless, the short-statured Pygmies and very tall Tutsis are lumped into one "black" race despite their many differences, while Tutsis and Caucasians are considered to be of different races despite their greater genetic similarity. The problem is, most human beings are "surface" thinkers who see importance only in what they believe to be important, rather than what really IS important. It's all black-and-white with them.

Perhaps we should abandon something as cosmetic as skin colour as a marker of race, and replace it with something more substantive, such as physiology.

Or better still, why don't we just forgo the concept of race altogether? It's brought humanity nothing but heartache.

[kwassa]

19. due to internalized standards from white society

though it is mostly a thing of the past, those of lighter skin held a higher position in black society.

[Karenina]

13. K&R

[mmonk]

14. Racists that are not in power

have no power to institute racism. In other words, non white racists in America are a non factor concerning institutional racism. Institutional racism in this country was created by caucasians. One can't go to sleep concerning institutional racism, so therefore, vigilance against it should not be weakened by thoughts it's "over".

[laughingloudly]

22. If you have to have power to be racists......

Does that mean those rednecks in West Virginia that call African-Americans names or exclude them from their BBQ are not racists? How about if it is in a town where there is a majority of African-Americans and the Mayor and town council are all (or nearly all) African American? I always thought those red-necked, beer-guzzling NASCAR fans were racists, but most of them live in trailers, drive old pickups, and have no power at all.

[mmonk]

31. So a barbecue is an institution?

[laughingloudly]

41. Exactly!.............

A BBQ is not an institution. So the redneck that invites all his white neighbors in the trailer park to the BBQ, but none of the blacks is NOT a racist????? He has no power, so by your definition, he can't be a racist. He is even repudiated by the Mayor and the City Council. So our redneck is "marginalized" and is not racist? Is that what you are saying?

I am just trying to understand you thinking process here. It would certainly explain why Rep. Rangel says that there has been a significant decline in racism in America over the last 50 years.

[mmonk]

45. Would you please show me where I said

that the redneck so mentioned in that post isn't racist? I'm trying to respond to the OP in a meaningful way and all I seem to get is twisting and turning of my words to mean things I don't say at all.

[JacksonWest]

25. Disagree. Racism isn't about power, its about belief.

Racism is the notion that a race is inferior or superior per se. You don't need to hold any power to believe that.

[Katherine Brengle]

27. If you have no power, your prejudice never gets the chance to effect others --

if you have no power, you have no chance to discriminate in a meaningful way.

Power is a key component to racism, at least in this country.

[JacksonWest]

28. "discriminate in a meaningful way"

That has nothing to do with whether someone is a racist.

From Web dictionary:

The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

http://www.answers.com/racism&r=67

I get what you're saying, but you're overstating what racism is. It's vast. It's the hate in the heart of some southern dirt farmer, or the callous disregard shown by *.

[skypilot]

34. hate in the heart

I agree. Although, I know that people mean well, I think that racism can start to sound very academic in discussions like this one. I think of racism as something more primal and coming from the "reptilian brain", as they call it.

[pampango]

30. Why not call it "personal racism" as opposed to "institutional

racism?" The latter is backed by the power of the state.

If a man hates women, he is a misogynist, not just prejudiced against women. If he hates all Blacks, Hispanics, Asian, etc, then he is a racist not just prejudiced against other races.

[skypilot]

33. What about the men...

...who dragged James Byrd to his death on the back of their truck? Not exactly "powerful" men in the institutional grand scheme of things but their prejudice effected Mr.Byrd and his family and community in a profound way.

[mmonk]

32. Where did I make the argument that power is racism?

[JacksonWest]

35. You never said power is racism. No one said you did.

You amde the argument that you need to be in power to be racist. That's what I responded to.

[mmonk]

36. No I didn't.

Whether my neighbor is racist or not does not impact whether American institutions are racist. The practices of those institutione indicate whether those institutions are racist. Our institutions have to be monitored and adjusted constantly with force of law to insure they are not or do not become racist.

[JacksonWest]

40. I don't disagree with what you just posted.

I disagree with the notion that:

1. Only white people can institutionalize racism.

2. Institutionalized racism has to come from a practice of an institution.

While all institutionalized racism manifests in a practice at some point, it doesn't stem directly from the institution. It stems from hearts and minds first. It's a reflection and utilization of the beliefs of individuals. Power comes from the people, not the institution. Your neighbor does impact what institutional racism we have or don't have.

Furthermore, we have a wonderful system of countering racism in this country. Racism is not unique to the United States. But a lot of our federal laws are fairly unique, in that people have an avenue to go down if they are discriminated against.

Power is a relative term. IT can change at any point, at any place. Often, what feels like institutional racism boils down to an individual-not a policy or a practice.

[mmonk]

46. First off, I never made such a claim as in #1.

As far as #2 goes, I'm speaking of racism that is present in practices considered institutional (such as lending, hiring practices, motion pictures, whatever etc.) and of course people make up the institution. Therefore, we make laws to correct the racism in these institutions which lead to prejudical practices that affect people's rights. My response is geared towards showing that someone might be a bigot, but doesn't necessarily affect our laws, especially if in this country, or any other for that matter, are themselves victims of racism. There is inevitably a power quotient involved in institutional racism in a society.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

18. its the dominant race in the country. dominance in terms of culture/political power &socioeconomic

power.

in india you would be referring to upper class hindus.

but white americans/europeans do control the world in terms of this dominance. so if you were viewing institutionalized racism on a global stage. it would still be caucasians that you are referring to.

[kwassa]

20. Institutional racism ceases to become an issue when ....

there are no longer de facto segregated housing areas in the US, and when all people regardless of race have access to the same quality of education and opportunity as anyone else.

[Katherine Brengle]

23. I think in many ways, the United States present a unique case when it comes to racism --

Racism in the US did not arise naturally. It was bred into the American people once the slave trade started. Because, in order to keep the slaves from fighting back, it was necessary to do two thing:

1) Keep the whites from becoming sympathetic and helping them. This was done by teaching white people to see blacks as less, to see themselves as something better than the blacks, and to see slavery as a natural and normal thing. This is especially true of the indentured servant class, a class which would have been a natural ally for the black slaves of the time.

2) Keep the blacks down. Don't educate them, don't let them read, don't allow them to form healthy family units and relationships. Beat them, humiliate them, tell them their place. Repeat this every day for hundreds of years.

This way, we raised up whiteness, cast down blackness, and created institutional racism. It exists in other places, but I believe its pervasiveness dominates much of American culture.

Howard Zinn speaks well to this in A People's History of the US.

[sniffa]

26. i'LL teLL you how it works in some countries

peopLe are just trying to survive and don't have time to care about race.

[JacksonWest]

29. I think there will always be racism, everywhere.

It's not going to cease to exist, unfortunately. It will slither, hide, and re-group. As society evolves, so will hate. Violence can be replaced by condescension. Prisons can be replaced by absence of opportunity. Conscious action can be replaced by silent marching orders designed to crush, oppress, and beguile.

I don't think that racism is unique to the United States, or white people. Having had the opportunity to travel the world and live in different countries, I can assure you that racist behavior is human behavior. The fear of the unknown or merely different elements. The padding of ones sense of security by tearing someone else down.

It's like a kid making fun of another kid. It's basic behavior, albeit negative.

The key, as I've said before, is to not let it affect you. Recognize it, isolate it, and move on. If racism keeps a door shut, find a sledge hammer. We have ways of dealing with institutional racism by government and employers. But, as far as individuals, no. You can't expect or hope to change behavior. You can't wipe away the life and experience of someone that is racist.

A lot of racism is unconscious, and that can be pointed out. These people can be alerted, and may make a change. But not usually.

Ultimately, at the end of the day, you have to choose how you let it affect you. If you want to eliminate racism completely-you're going to go crazy. If you choose to not let racist people bother you or oppress you-that seems healthier.

Not that people shouldn't get angry or upset. We all do. But sometimes it's best to let it go. Living well is the best revenge, and not letting the ignorant unwashed massed bother us for a second.

[TahitiNut]

37. The notion that it's only 'racism' if it's "successful" racism appalls me.

That'd be a little like saying that Our Leader isn't REALLY an ignorant putz because he's a "sucessful" ignorant putz.

I once had the distinct displeasure to work around a senior executive in a Fortune 50 company who was not only black, but was a far right-wing conservative highly ranked in the Urban League. He was know by us insiders to have voiced his disdain for "n_____s" - carving out for himself the facade of "exceptionalism" and gaining the approval of his white (and brown) peers for being an "enlightened black man" made even more worthy of respect for "overcoming" the innate weaknesses of being black.

It was fucking disgusting! (No ... I never called him an "Oreo," either.)

This was over 30 years ago. I was fairly well along my own path of freeing my psyche of race-based paradigms, so I was not so overly perplexed that I couldn't see the corrupt exploitation of race.

The idea that anyone, based on their skin color or ethnicity, gets a "free pass" on corruption is appalling to me.

[geardaddy]

38. Having lived in Taiwan (ROC)

and being a white male, I can confirm that there was institutional racism toward anyone who wasn't a Chinese (Taiwanese) male through the forbidding of me becoming a legal resident based on marriage to an ROC citizen. Now, it's an interesting thing, that if a ROC citizen who is male married a female foreign resident, she would gain residency. So, even though it's based on gender it comes down to race as well.
I don't know if this is still the case.

[Karenina]

54. A white male

who grew up bi-lingual in Japan, knows how low to bow instinctively and desires to be a part of that society is one who understands institutionalized racism.

[Greyhound]

47. In reading through this thread, it seems to me that what we are really talking about

is class and the power they hold (or don't). The few who control this power use race, among other "issues", to keep and expand that power over the "others". It is just another means to divide the sheep so they don't realize that all the power is theirs, because believe me, this realization is the only thing they fear.

If you don't believe that you are better than others, or that others are inferior to you, because of the amount of melanin and/or variations of exterior physiology, you are not a racist.

[NuttyFluffers]

50. quite easy. think of the circles in a pond ripple...

we are multidimentional entities, defined in various ways. we have associations in family/friends, clan, neighborhood, polis, state/province, polity, regional polities, hemispherical intra-polity relations, and finally global relations (fill in the in-betweens as needed). within each of these spheres is where social technology can be weilded into institutional abuse of any minority/weaker group. this is where the -isms come in.

now, since we are more than one specific group, we can be abused or abuse others dependent upon what sort of options are available within whichever sphere you are looking at. so we can say a racist Japanese person in Japan is a racist. if he goes to, let's say Birmingham, Alabama, this Japanese person may have deeply prejudicial ideas, but there's not enough clout in that locale to do anything about it. Now let's say he goes to, oh i don't know, Honolulu, Hawai'i. there is a significant Japanese American and Japanese population there. this same Japanese person might have the capacity to wield some racism on a small level of let's say a city region Small Business Association. he/she might even have some capacity to even extend this into the sphere of the polis, though on a granted limited level. if this person tried to extend it to full island or state or national region or national level, they would be hopelessly disconnected from the true reins of power. in fact, they'd likely be apt target to be a victim of another racist with greater institutional clout options.

now, to extend this further, that Japan has racism in their country, to a global perspective. in the WTO, G9, etc. Japan is quite outnumbered in the true reins of power. so their power is restricted and in fact they can be victimized pretty much at whim (some in Japan might argue they are being so right now, in terms of their constitution, military, and military hosting obligations). in terms of race, White is by far dominant in the current global reins of power.

now, it does get interesting because there are even subdivisions within this. for the most part Israel is politically controlled by Ashkenaz Jews, and they being from the Polish/Russia area, are essentially part of the club of "white" and "western." but they are still relegated to a lower status than other "white, western" group members because of their 'outsider' status and thus suffer a more nominal status. Russia too, being culturally a frontier with Asia, and containing a vast mix of peoples throughout its empire/polity, though "white" and "western" are still considered fringe members of the club and are treated accordingly (and be very assured that they are aware of this lowered status among their "peers"). Italy and Spain, though being very much grounded in "white" and "western" club, and holding far closer association than just about all Eastern European nations, are relegated also to lower tiered status (implied of course, because de facto racism is the most effective kind, no?). their influence in the reins of power are also limited to the major players of global politics.

if given the time people would factionalize themselves up into atomized particles, it seems. but there is a level of organization and complicit agreement on these popularity contests. and once they are decided, whoever wins gets the advantage of the subtle tools with which to abuse others. so, even though i disagree with the statement (for it is horribly unnuanced), there can be a compelling argument -- if fixated on the global political realities -- that "only whites can be racist." but let's be clear, your average Bubba Bigot can't walk on up to WTO or World Bank and demand that they redline New Orleans in half and sink Mexico into the sea. this is why such "truism" eventually break down because of their gross blanketing.

did that help? :D

[Karenina]

53. Now THAT

was around the block and back! :hug:

[Dastard Stepchild]

51. Postcolonial, anti-oppressive theorists argue yes...

That the power structures that uphold racism are alive and present in other countries.

[Colobo]

55. Go to Latin America

If you want to see some good old fashioned racism in action.

[Dastard Stepchild]

56. That's for sure!

Love your Obama icon. :)