• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

‘To be white is to be racist, period,’ a high school teacher told his class

Status
Not open for further replies.

Infinite

Member
Top tier shitposting seems to be one of your more obvious qualities.

It is funny watching your "gotcha" fall flat on its ass though.

Dig through my post history. I've said some actual dumb misinformed shit before here. The worst one was probably me going full diet racist 2 years ago. Id like to think ive learned a lot since then.



The teacher's language certainly suggest it is, which does indeed prevent most real discussion and instead encourages the nonsense shitposting seen above.

I think the teacher could have been a lot more nuanced with how they got this message across but I don't think it's wrong. I'll take it even further and say that people period growing up in a racists society like America's are definitely going have some racial blind spots at the minimum. My post you quoted however is more about the discussion I'm reading on this page where some people believe that label racists must be reserve for individuals who are forthright and apparent (to them) with their racism. Like I was saying I do not believe that racism is a binary either/or condition. I think it's more of a spectrum, we all have our blind spots and we probably all said racists shit at one point in our lives. That's the consequence of being nurtured by a racist society like ours. As long as you as an individual are making a conscious effort to be not racist and learn from your mistakes when you slip then that's fine people won't be on your case and I don't think you have to worry about being branded with the capital R for the rest of your life.

That leads me to another thing where these discussion becomes about the person and not what the person did. If someone slips up and says or does some racist shit and people call it out as "hey that was racist" people take that to mean that you're calling them a racist and not addressing the action as racist. It really makes these discussions hard for people especially since some how being called a racists is now as bad as being called a racist slur. We gotta get past white fragility to make any step forward on this.
 

Audioboxer

Member
I won't argue that most if not all white people are at least a little quick to go racist.

Its hard for me to admit and I hate it about myself. But I'm not going to sit here and say I've never been at a sketchy gas station and been automatically a little worried about some black guy in a hoodie.

Now, this lasts for about half a second. Then I mentally punch myself for being a freaking idiot. This guy hasn't done anything to me. He's not even doing anything wrong. And I hate that I've ever done it. But, living with my extremely racist grandparents, it creeps in sometimes.

Fight or flight. Unless you are a creationist you'll have to accept evolution and our roots. It's completely normal to still have inner responses to a situation on a scale of how dangerous could this be for me? You've used the words sketchy area, and then hoodie. Regardless of even getting to the person's ethnicity it is an understandable impulse to feel a slight boost in adrenaline in that situation. Like it or not crime probably is higher in what one would class a sketchy area, and a hoodie for long spells of time has been used as a way to obscure identity.

How the body might react doesn't have to be how the mind does. So if you're well rounded mentally you will assess the actual reality of the situation and behave appropriately. Most likely marginalising the fight or flight feeling and going about your business knowing you are going to be just fine. No point in shaming yourself for having the feelings if you act appropriately, as I said a part of feelings in such situations are tied to our biological evolution.

Evolution is about things improving and adapting, but you still have traces of what we first were millions of years ago. As do animals in the wild these days with flight or fight being in abundance and easy to study.

This. Everyone tends to be more comfortable by default by people who look like them. The question then is do you actively acknowledge this to yourself and continually work on being a better person or just give yourself over to this prejudice out of fear.

Potentially yeah, and again it can be linked to evolutionary reasons. On that note again though it's all about how you respond to the data fed to your body and mind. Do you respond appropriately or irrationally?

As for this lecturer I tried to find what the class was for, as in subject but I'm either blind or it isn't there. If it's some sort of historical class I can understand the topic coming up, and in reality the appropriate response for students is to challenge their professor. If it's a math class then yeah the educational board might need to investigate why a math teacher is making such statements. The students in that case are there to learn about math.

Outside of my pragmatic approach to certain issues in this topic I don't feel equipped to say much else. America has a very insular looking debate and issues around racism which I feel as a foreigner I can't relate to as easily. As an individual I literally view anything in the world you don't get to choose as something indefensible to criticise/abuse. I didn't get to choose my skin colour at birth so anyone trying to shame me for it for the actions of others that happen to be my colour can take a hike. I prefer to be judged on my own merits and actions. However having an open discussion about other people sharing my skin colour behaving in terrible ways is not only fine but should be mandatory, just not blanket statements that have zero nuance.

Sadly I don't think racial abuse will ever be something humanity will eradicate. All we can do is our best to behave reasonably as individuals and call out bullshit when it happens so justice can be served.
 
As a latino, may i ask why?

I'm Afro-Latino and the reason why racism against whites doesn't exist goes directly back to our history as latinos. Racism was actually invented around the time that Europe first encountered Caribbean peoples. There's a current apologist myth about Columbus, and other prominent white figures from the 15th and 16th centuries, that the brutal violence committed against indigenous peoples and black slaves occurred in part because Europeans at the time 'didn't know any better'.

This is a complete lie. in fact, when reports of the savage brutality that Columbus and others were inflicting on the native population reached Europe, there was moral outrage from both the clergy and the nobility. This created a dilemma because the brutal violence being committed was a direct result of Europeans pillaging the Americas for gold.

Ultimately, conquistadors, the nobility, the clergy, and the monarchy had to come up with a moral justification that would excuse their actions so they could continue to enrich themselves. This is where racism comes in.

Racism, contrary to modern liberal beliefs, is not an ideology of hatred. Racism is a moral-philosophical worldview. Racism, first articulated by conquistadors and white slave traders, posits that the darker skinned people of the world - in large part because they were ignorant of Jesus Christ - were not the same class of human as the light -skinned peoples of Europe. These dark-skinned peoples, classified as red, black, and yellow, were of a lower order. This meant that as christians, Europeans had a duty to 'educate' and 'civilize' these 'savage' people. It also meant that, like animals, these inferior people could and should be used for the benefit of European society as a whole. To do so was simply helping these savages reach their full potential - because otherwise the savage would be content to lounge, accomplish nothing, and wallow in their ignorance of Christ until they were condemned to eternal damnation.

We can see from this historical perspective two things. The first is that the early proponents of racism are making a moral argument. They are trying to argue that treating dark-skinned people differently is the morally correct thing to do for both Europeans and non-whites. Christianity, and the concept of saving souls, was crucial to the early formation of racist theory.

The second point is that racism is about the superiority of whites over non-whites. Racism argues that slavery and imperialism are just because God has given white Christians dominion over the earth and its lesser creatures, be they animals or so-called savages. How can such an ideology be turned against the very people it was meant to uplift? How can you use white supremacy against a white person?

To make it absolutely clear, racism is not the hatred of someone else for the color of their skin. This is a revision put forth by conservatives in the 1970's and 1980's once open advocacy of racist ideology was deemed inappropriate in polite society. This revision was then adopted by centrist liberals because it sounds egalitarian, and because centrist liberals are just as uncomfortable talking about race honestly as any other white person.

So no, you can't be racist against a white person. Ever. You can't because racism is an ideology built around the superiority of whites and the inferiority of non-whites.


This person is clearly mean spirited and prejudiced against whites. But they're not racist because racism against white people isn't a thing.

Be sure to check out other great videos like "Are Interracial Relationships, Rape?", "I'm Anti-Semitic" and "Don't tip white people!"

Anti-semitism isn't racism just like sexism or transphobia are not racism. It's a distinct form of bigotry that stands on its own. I never said black people couldn't be mean or discriminatory. Also, there are millions of black jews and jews of other races. Acting as though anti-semitism is a species of anti-white racism erases those people.
 

electrotonus

Neo Member
Every society on earth is racist. Racism is not exclusive to white societies. This I can tell you after travelling a lot. In fact, white societies so far are the only ones trying to make amends. Most other societies are quite content with being just as racist as white societies in the past.

Americans often seem to live in an ivory tower. As a minority myself, I can assure you that there are places way, way, way more racist than the USA.
 

johnny956

Member
I won't argue that most if not all white people are at least a little quick to go racist.

Its hard for me to admit and I hate it about myself. But I'm not going to sit here and say I've never been at a sketchy gas station and been automatically a little worried about some black guy in a hoodie.

Now, this lasts for about half a second. Then I mentally punch myself for being a freaking idiot. This guy hasn't done anything to me. He's not even doing anything wrong. And I hate that I've ever done it. But, living with my extremely racist grandparents, it creeps in sometimes.


You sound like me right when I moved to the city 4 years ago (lived out in the white suburbs my whole life). If you are taught something your entire life it does take time to realize those thoughts that pop into your head are wrong. Honestly the best thing a white person can do is being in a diverse neighborhood or being around a diverse group of people. It's changed my perspective in the last 4 years.
 
I won't argue that most if not all white people are at least a little quick to go racist.

Its hard for me to admit and I hate it about myself. But I'm not going to sit here and say I've never been at a sketchy gas station and been automatically a little worried about some black guy in a hoodie.

Now, this lasts for about half a second. Then I mentally punch myself for being a freaking idiot. This guy hasn't done anything to me. He's not even doing anything wrong. And I hate that I've ever done it. But, living with my extremely racist grandparents, it creeps in sometimes.

Solidarity.

Neither are all white people racist nor do all white people have privilege. Would anyone seriously claim that a 10 year old white boy living in poverty that society generally looks down upon as 'trailer trash' or 'white trash' has privilege? Someone that society calls 'trash', human garbage?

This whole white privilege talk is just a petty ploy to distract attention from the real divide in the USA, that of class. The 10 year old boy from above doesn't have privilege, but boy, does the 10 year old boy living in a huge mansion in Beverly Hills.

FOH. Give that 10 year-old white boy a toy gun and let him play outside. Then give a 10 year-old black boy - of ANY economic class - the same toy. See what happens.
 

ThisGuy

Member
So no, you can't be racist against a white person. Ever. You can't because racism is an ideology built around the superiority of whites and the inferiority of non-whites.



This person is clearly mean spirited and prejudiced against whites. But they're not racist because racism against white
So the meaning of racism cannot change over time? And I absolutely disagree with the idea that no one can be racist against whites. Your old ass crusty definition can get fucked. And so can anyone who believes that.
 

depths20XX

Member
Racism didn't start with Columbus. If you believe that you have a fundamentaly flawed idea of racism. I mean, you're just straight up wrong.
 
Racism:

maxresdefault.jpg

White Nationalism:


All white people are racist, and that racism may or may not manifest itself in small ways. But not all white people are white nationalist, photo-fascist monsters.



Racism didn't start with Columbus. If you believe that you have a fundamentaly flawed idea of racism. I mean, you're just straight up wrong.

If you think the birth of racism/white supremacy did not coincide with the beginnings of European imperialism, explain why.
 

LordKasual

Banned
It's an incredibly complicated issue, but I think the teacher is pretty much right.

There is a difference between holding malicious racist beliefs out of hatred and innate racist ideas due to being misinformed. I think to some degree all people (especially white people) have stereotypical ideas about people of other races that are false but ingrained due to cultural osmosis. People should work to fight those things.

If someone has some of those mild cultural racist ideas, I would not necessarily call that person a "racist," especially if they attempt to resolve them or improve.

His wording is terrible though. All white people are not racist, thats ridiculous, and it's a terrible message to give to white and black students alike. "Humans are racist" is a much better choice of words because it highlights the underlying issue better. And this isn't about cushioning the message, either. I say that because even if people do have misinformed, ingrained stereotypes, it does not mean they are racist by choice, they are simply ignorant, and need to be educated.

Calling an entire single race of people "racist" just inherently dulls the word anytime it needs to actually be used, which just makes it worse for everyone. Nobody wants white people to pity themselves, we want them to realize and acknowledge the difference in their perspective. It's easier to do that by educating students rather than accusing them, and that counts triple for adults who aren't as plastic when it comes to changing their mode of thinking, and will kneejerk to statements like that without allowing it to even come close to sinking in.


"Statistically speaking, you're probably racist"

"Who here thinks they aren't racist?"

"Lets see if we can identify what kinds of thoughts come to mind when speaking of different races"


But

"If you're white, you're a racist, heres 10 reasons why"

Is the type of wording that works coming out of a Cracked article or something. But if you're in a dead serious classroom, where the message is to be taken in at face value, i personally disagree with the angle. It's just way too easy to fight. Places like Fox News have become masters of twisting that kind of angle.
 

electrotonus

Neo Member
FOH. Give that 10 year-old white boy a toy gun and let him play outside. Then give a 10 year-old black boy - of ANY economic class - the same toy. See what happens.

So, you really think that the police would shoot the 10 year old black kid playing with his toy gun in front of a huge mansion in Beverly Hills that his parents own?

I don't think so.

If someone has privilege, this person must have some kind of power and might in the society. In a capitalistic society this power and might translates into money. Someone who clearly has no money, doesn't have power and might in the society. It's that simple.

To claim that the 10 year old white kid living in a trailer park with his meth abusing parents, going to a bad school, having no money at all is privileged compared to the 10 year old black kid living in Beverly Hills getting the best education available is ridiculous to say the least.

This whole 'Every white person is privileged' talk is oversimplistic nonsense. Race does play a role in the privilege a person has but it is far from being the most important, let alone the only factor determining a person's privilege.
 

Infinite

Member
Racism didn't start with Columbus. If you believe that you have a fundamentaly flawed idea of racism. I mean, you're just straight up wrong.
It's actually right. You can corroborate this if you cared to try. The concept of race as we understand it today comes from European imperialism. But who am I say. I mean you also shot down a sociological professor who studied this shit for years last page lol
 
So just so we are clear, nobody treated and considered those of a different race as savages or animals before 1492? Dehumanization based on your culture/race didnt happen before?

And another thing, racism can only come from white people? By your logic, an Asian can't be racist towards a black man because racism is about the superiority of white people over others. Ridiculous.

"Racism is about the superiority of white people over others". What a crock of shit. That's, ironically, incredibly eurocentric and ignores the rest of race relations among other cultures around the world. Cross-culture interaction between Africans, Arabs, and Indians through monsoon season trade? You think racism wasnt a thing during that?
 

depths20XX

Member
It's actually right. You can corroborate this if you cared to try. The concept of race as we understand it today comes from European imperialism. But who am I say. I mean you also shot down a sociological professor who studied this shit for years last page lol

Sure, if your whole world view revolves around America.

I didn't shoot down a professor. The dude posted a link to her profile as if that means anything about that bogus chart which provides no evidence of "all white people are racist".
 

Audioboxer

Member
So, you really think that the police would shoot the 10 year old black kid playing with his toy gun in front of a huge mansion in Beverly Hills that his parents own?

I don't think so.

If someone has privilege, this person must have some kind of power and might in the society. In a capitalistic society this power and might translates into money. Someone who clearly has no money, doesn't have power and might in the society. It's that simple.

To claim that the 10 year old white kid living in a trailer park with his meth abusing parents, going to a bad school, having no money at all is privileged compared to the 10 year old black kid living in Beverly Hills getting the best education available is ridiculous to say the least.

This whole 'Every white person is privileged' talk is oversimplistic nonsense. Race does play a role in the privilege a person has but it is far from being the most important, let alone the only factor determining a person's privilege.

The police wouldn't be driving around in such areas lol. There would be some private security firm no doubt.

But yes class issues do also play a part. Some will flat out deny they exist, others blame everything on class. The reasonable explanation lies somewhere in the middle. As I said above geographical locations alone can play into flight or fight emotional responses. Literally no human can be visible but just a location alone prep you for worrying about an increased risk in danger. Even if that risk is somewhat manufactured and not actual reality. Ask how many people enjoy walking through dark tunnels? What about walking past abandoned derelict looking buildings with smashed windows and lots of graffiti?

And for what it's worth while we expect police to react far more disciplined than the average person they too, as humans, have the said same flight or fight mechanisms. The major point there though is for your country to be accepting anyone into the force they literally should be in the top 20% or something of individuals who have evolved more favourably to handle flight or fight. America proves when you don't give a shit about your vetting and training systems you get cops so ready to pull the trigger at any inner response of danger they could shoot a young unarmed kid. To have lives of innocents lost in situations where such a level of brutality wasn't needed in the slightest is tragic. Often it is a mixture of racism and people that have been given a badge and gun that never in a million years should be sworn into a position to protect and serve.
 

electrotonus

Neo Member
I'm Afro-Latino and the reason why racism against whites doesn't exist goes directly back to our history as latinos. Racism was actually invented around the time that Europe first encountered Caribbean peoples. There's a current apologist myth about Columbus, and other prominent white figures from the 15th and 16th centuries, that the brutal violence committed against indigenous peoples and black slaves occurred in part because Europeans at the time 'didn't know any better'.
For centuries millions of European people as well as black people have been enslaved by the Arabs. They justified it with them not being Arab and not being Muslim. If they couldn't sell them on the slave markets, they killed them. Some muslim countries castrated every slave in order to 'prevent them from polluting the gene pool', speaking in modern terms. Up to this day, if people want to marry in Saudi Arabia, they have to prove they are not of black African descent.

If that is not racism, what is it?



Anti-semitism isn't racism just like sexism or transphobia are not racism. It's a distinct form of bigotry that stands on its own. I never said black people couldn't be mean or discriminatory. Also, there are millions of black jews and jews of other races. Acting as though anti-semitism is a species of anti-white racism erases those people.

Of course Anti-Semitism is racism. The Nazis in Germany justified the attempt of exterminating the Jewish people because they were of a different and inferior race according to them. They called them not a people, but a race ('Jüdische Rasse'). Being in a partnership with a Jewish woman or man was deemed 'Rassenschande'.

Also there are no millions of black Jews. There are close to 150,000 Beta Israel (Ethiopian Jews), residing primarily in Israel as of today. Additionally, there are black Jews in the USA and other countries but nowhere close to millions.
 

Demoskinos

Member
So no, you can't be racist against a white person. Ever. You can't because racism is an ideology built around the superiority of whites and the inferiority of non-whites.



This person is clearly mean spirited and prejudiced against whites. But they're not racist because racism against white people isn't a thing.

Uhhhhh....there are plenty of other examples of racism in the world that have zero to do with white people.

And yes... you can be racist against white people but at the same time western society almost never puts a white person in a place where they feel systemically oppressed the way a lot of non-white people do. That doesn't mean it does not exist...
 
"White people in North America live in a social environment that protects and insulates them from race-based stress. This insulated environment of racial protection builds white expectations for racial comfort while at the same time lowering the ability to tolerate racial stress, leading to what I refer to as White Fragility. White Fragility is a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation. These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium."

...

As an illustration of the above, let’s look at Donald Trump. Trump is known for speaking in vague generalities and declaring simplistic solutions for complex problems. He avoids policy and fact-based conversations, and gets angry and disgusted at the drop of a hat. Now imagine that when it comes to conversations on race, White people in America act a lot like Donald Trump. We generally lack knowledge, but we always have an opinion. We lack the skill set for nuanced conversations, so we pretend they aren’t necessary. When we can’t avoid, we deflect, or we get upset. We’re thin-skinned.

There are a lot of reasons White people have such a low threshold for discomfort. For one, we tend to lead segregated lives, and we think of ourselves as individuals as opposed to members of a group. We receive constant messages that Whiteness is valuable, and we’re used to feeling a sense of belonging in most spaces. All of this leads to a huge sense of entitlement to being not only comfortable, but correct, at all times.

...

Some disambiguation is necessary with this term. “White supremacy” is a system that prioritizes whiteness regardless of the presence or absence of racial hatred, but a “white supremacist” is a person who embraces overt racial hatred. It’s like a spectrum. By default, all White people are on the spectrum of complicity in upholding a system of White supremacy, but we only give the negative label of “White supremacists” to the really hateful people at the far end. This allows the rest of us to say “we’re not them.”....

....This good/bad binary is designed to prevent conversations. It keeps us focused on racism as an individual problem that “bad” people have, as opposed to a system of social control that implicates us. And it sets in place a hair trigger by which we experience any challenge to our racial worldview as a challenge to very our identities as good, moral people. Our lizard brains cannot handle contradictions to our goodness as people.

...


2016-07-11-1468243391-8355961-table-thumb.png


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anna-...d-language-of-white-fragility_b_10909350.html

You're so deep into charts you have lost touch with reality. People are people, not numbers. Your entire response is to treat me as a collective instead of as a person. Charts are useful to learn how to implement societal changes, not to make judgements about people and decide how they should feel. You're perfectly comfortable using them to tell me how I should feel, though.
Someone else hurting worse than the person you're hurting is not an excuse to continue. The way you respect those around you isn't a contest. Instead of spending time gathering charts to prove it's okay to treat certain groups of people badly, just decide to be a good neighbor to everyone you meet and be conscious of people who need extra help.

This is really a little besides the point because the teacher was trying to make a point about culture bias and he just worded it very badly, but it troubles me how many people forget that the endgame of racial progress is egalitarianism. For example many members here would like to tell me that it was perfectly fine for a group of people to follow me around screaming 'gringo' at me while throwing shit at me just because I'm white. I should have grown thicker skin and high fived them because I'm too "fragile" and I dont deserve to be treated with respect because other people get it worse than me.

Anyone who thinks that way has lost touch and views living people as lifeless chess pieces.
I'm a big advocate of positive support meaning lifting up the people who need it and lifting less for the people who don't. Things like electing more minorities into office, casting more minorities in entertainment, creating new programs to assist low-income citizens, etc. Some people go into the negatives though which is not the way I was raised to treat the people around me and I think there is no excuse.

Don't be like the one-upper guy who responds to a friend's deceased family member with "Well I lost two sisters and my dog so grow up and stop whining." Nobody thinks that's okay so I don't know why it's okay here.

My biggest problem with the idea that "to be white is to be racist" is that it is so absolutist that it completely shuts down all conversation and implies that nothing can be done.

Born white, oops your racist! Always have, always will be.

It ignores that it's a societal issue that is being ignored and can be changed, but instead makes it out to be some inharent trait. Almost as if it can't be changed and could never be changed.

Pretty much. That's why what he said ruined the point he was actually trying to make.

Uhhhhh....there are plenty of other examples of racism in the world that have zero to do with white people.

And yes... you can be racist against white people but at the same time western society almost never puts a white person in a place where they feel systemically oppressed the way a lot of non-white people do. That doesn't mean it does not exist...

Stop you're making your point too clearly and being too fair, this cannot be allowed, we need more arguing and sports team mentality. GAF doesn't like shades of grey, just us vs them.

You all let me know which part of my mixed family I get to call racists because of their inherited skin color.

GAF will get to the bottom of it soon! Only 368 identical threads to go.

Honestly we should just depreciate the use of the word "racism" in general when it comes to academic and political usage. Popular and formal usage have strayed so far from one another and the connotations are so toxic you can't talk about systemic discrimination without even unintentionally implying direct individual personal prejudice.

That would certainly help. The current word not only confuses conversation but I think it causes people to actually lump things together that should not be. Like the guy I am replying to above seemingly wants to talk about society-level "racism" which is one topic but then also makes it more personal by saying I'm a fragile butterfly whose feelings dont count for anything.
 
Honestly we should just depreciate the use of the word "racism" in general when it comes to academic and political usage. Popular and formal usage have strayed so far from one another and the connotations are so toxic you can't talk about systemic discrimination without even unintentionally implying direct individual personal prejudice.
 

electrotonus

Neo Member
Uhhhhh....there are plenty of other examples of racism in the world that have zero to do with white people.

And yes... you can be racist against white people but at the same time western society almost never puts a white person in a place where they feel systemically oppressed the way a lot of non-white people do. That doesn't mean it does not exist...
True.

Western societies were built by White people and despite immigration in recent decades are still predominantly White. Being built and populated by White people, of course those societies favor the 'White norm'.

But the same can be said about East Asian societies or African societies or Middle Eastern societies.

Racism is a universal trait that people have. People favor the company of people that look like them. Societies can try to fight this trait. But limiting the scope to a subset of people by claiming that only this subset of people can be racist (which is racism in itself, that's why it's so absurd) will lead to nothing.
 

Audioboxer

Member
True.

Western societies were built by White people and despite immigration in recent decades are still predominantly White. Being built and populated by White people, of course those societies favor the 'White norm'.

But the same can be said about East Asian societies or African societies or Middle Eastern societies.

Racism is a universal trait that people have. People favor the company of people that look like them. Societies can try to fight this trait. But limiting the scope to a subset of people by claiming that only this subset of people can be racist (which is racism in itself, that's why it's so absurd) will lead to nothing.

There are evolutionary reasons for that sort of behaviour, however as the most evolved species we should do a heck of a better job at integrating than we are. While there can be cultural and ideological clashes when moving around the globe again to regurgitate the same old point, people don't get to choose where they are born or their ethnicity. It should therefore never be something to critically attack a person on. That should be reserved solely for their behaviour and things like culture/ideological beliefs. That is why I do get a bit frustrated when people conflate religion with racism. I can in some cases understand why, but if someone is being racist it's because they are saying or doing something racist. Not because they are criticising a religious book.

Often where I can understand it is where an individual or group are trying to be "smart" and disguise racism in amongst saying they are just criticising religion. That is usually obvious to catch out though.
 
So the meaning of racism cannot change over time? And I absolutely disagree with the idea that no one can be racist against whites. Your old ass crusty definition can get fucked. And so can anyone who believes that.

Honestly we should just depreciate the use of the word "racism" in general when it comes to academic and political usage. Popular and formal usage have strayed so far from one another and the connotations are so toxic you can't talk about systemic discrimination without even unintentionally implying direct individual personal prejudice.

It's interesting that we had one definition of racism for about 500 years and it worked out GREAT for white people. But as soon as racism gets used as a negative label against whites, it's time to trash the word or change what it means.
 
It's interesting that we had one definition of racism for about 500 years and it worked out GREAT for white people. But as soon as racism gets used as a negative label against whites, it's time to trash the word or change what it means.

Because racism extisted in zero nonwhite cultures before or during that time. Everyone respected each others culture before the white man came in.
 

electrotonus

Neo Member
It's interesting that we had one definition of racism for about 500 years and it worked out GREAT for white people. But as soon as racism gets used as a negative label against whites, it's time to trash the word or change what it means.

As far as I know, racism as a word didn't exist 500 years ago, it's actually quite a modern word tracing its roots to the 20th century (albeit there have been words with similar meaning from the late 19th century). How can the word racism then have had 'one definition' for 500 years if it didn't even exist that long?
 

ThisGuy

Member
It's interesting that we had one definition of racism for about 500 years and it worked out GREAT for white people. But as soon as racism gets used as a negative label against whites, it's time to trash the word or change what it means.
The fuck you even talking about? I'm talking about the actions of others to whites. I could give a fuck less if you think all white people are racist. If that's how you feel, I feel for your white friends. Cause the average person has a normal definition of racism.
 

besada

Banned
If you can't have this discussion calmly, without being a passive-aggressive, snarky dick you might take a gander upthread and note what's been happening to the passive-aggressive, snarky dicks in the thread.

And, again, let's try for better than "They're wrong!" or "They're right!" as the totality of your post. This is a discussion board, not an ejaculate your opinion and wander off board.

As always, if you have blah blah PM a mod blah blah support@neogaf.com blah blah.
 
What would you describe the discriminatory/dehumanizing behavior's between nonwhite cultures as then kame-sennin?

I think I've been straight forward about it. What's passive aggressive about my post? I assume you're talking to me.

I'm directly talking about racism committed against white people. I cannot think of single reason for it not to apply, at a street level obviously, which the poster I'm talking to say it don't even apply there. How you figure that?

I brought it back in a bit, I can be civil.

Your vulgarity was a bit much.
 

ThisGuy

Member
I think I've been straight forward about it. What's passive aggressive about my post? I assume you're talking to me.

I'm directly talking about racism committed against white people. I cannot think of single reason for it not to apply, at a street level obviously, which the poster I'm talking to say it don't even apply there. How you figure that?

I brought it back in a bit, I can be civil.

Your vulgarity was a bit much.
I mean that's fair. You got me on that, being snarky and an ass. But I make it a point to try and not be passive aggressive, that's a weak way to talk someone.
 

CDV13

Member
Silly Nonsense replied to about 6 posts with points that were valid, and he got banned? He really wasn't being passive-aggressive other than one response in that post. Seems a bit much.
 
So just so we are clear, nobody treated and considered those of a different race as savages or animals before 1492? Dehumanization based on your culture/race didnt happen before?

And another thing, racism can only come from white people? By your logic, an Asian can't be racist towards a black man because racism is about the superiority of white people over others. Ridiculous.

"Racism is about the superiority of white people over others". What a crock of shit. That's, ironically, incredibly eurocentric and ignores the rest of race relations among other cultures around the world. Cross-culture interaction between Africans, Arabs, and Indians through monsoon season trade? You think racism wasnt a thing during that?

Because racism extisted in zero nonwhite cultures before or during that time. Everyone respected each others culture before the white man came in.

What would you describe the discriminatory/dehumanizing behavior's between nonwhite cultures as then kame-sennin?



Your vulgarity was a bit much.
I feel you, but can you cite something that talks about racism before the 13th century? It seems like you're arguing off an assumption you've made (that I've also made my whole life) while kame-sennin has clearly read up on colonialism and imperialism.

I'm asking this because all I know is what was in that Derek Black article on The Washington Post, and I want to learn more, because this isn't something I've ever looked up past what was in books that tore down Columbus:

He was taking classes in Jewish scripture and German multiculturalism during his last year at New College, but most of his research was focused on medieval Europe. He learned that Western Europe had begun not as a great society of genetically superior people but as a technologically backward place that lagged behind Islamic culture. He studied the 8th century to the 12th century, trying to trace back the modern concepts of race and whiteness, but he couldn’t find them anywhere. “We basically just invented it,” he concluded.
 

ThisGuy

Member
It's interesting that we had one definition of racism for about 500 years and it worked out GREAT for white people. But as soon as racism gets used as a negative label against whites, it's time to trash the word or change what it means.
Okay, let me try again without being rude.

When I think of racism, on a micro level (because I believe it's the only way it can apply to whites), I think of an awful ideology that has the possibilities of leading to a horrific incident. The standard definition.

I do not believe all crime is equal, or sin however you feel for phrasing it. Acts of racism committed against a person is, to me, some of the worst things on this planet. There's really no reason for it, it's not about being poor, or cheated, or wronged. It's just a really terrible thing.

When I see something happen to a white person that you wouldn't call a racist act, but would call a racist act if the skin colors were reversed, it honestly comes off as if when it happens to a white person it's not as bad. There's a legal aspect to it that may play into it as well?

Now if you don't intend that, okay I'll hear you out because I didn't see you directly say that and that's not fair to assume, but to me, and other people that's what it sounds like. Words have clear meanings to people, and certain acts are not as bad as others.

These definitions are pretty established, and I see how hard it is to get people down with institutional racism no matter how obvious it is. So what is the benefit of saying whites can never experience racism? What's wrong about how racism is perceived today? Sans the denial of institutional racism. I'm trying to focus on the micro level aspects as I believe it is coined.

I do not see the benefit. I'm guessing you do, can you explain it to me.
 
(snip) But they're not racist because racism against white people isn't a thing.

Absolutely disgusting.

Won't argue against the claim that racism was invented by white colonialists. But that does not translate to the claim that the meaning of racism could not have changed through time.

Moreover, if one does take racism with the meaning you use, then that means that not all white people are racist. The racist things a well-meaning white person might do or think, in that case, do NOT reflect a world view that black people are inherently less in any way (as you allege that the -initial- meaning of racism incorporates). That is akin to saying that all white people believe, as part of their world view, that black people are inferior. I hope that is as obviously false to you as it is to me.

Refusing to label anti-white racism the same way as the other types of racism also aims to create an impression that it is less wrong to be racist against white people as opposed to others. That's because people don't want to be seen as racist because they perceive that being racist entails being bigoted against a whole race (or races), and nobody wants to consciously identify with such disgusting bigotry, also, it is (rightfully) recognized as a disgusting and corrupt world view. I hope that signifies something to you about the current perceived definition of racism.

"Prejudice" also has far less weight to it than "racism", ans substituting the former for the latter thus tries to downplay its wrongness.

I do agree with you on that pro-white racism causes far more (tangible and measurable) harm on a social scale compared to anti-white racism, and that needs to be understood, but that does not mean that anti-white racism is less fucked up than pro-white racism. Something can be morally wrong even if it harms no one (tangibly).

Another thing that I find unacceptable about your ideology is that there is no room for a white person to be "prejudiced" in your terms. A black person makes a racially hateful statement, and it is "prejudiced". A white person makes an analogous hateful statement about black people, and it is "racist"- which, by your definition, connects that person to colonialist ideology and ideas of actively oppressing minorities which is a far cry of any statement that can sensibly be made regarding racial prejudices of white people of TODAY.
So, for your definition of racism to make sense in a contemporary context, we'd need to claim that most if not all white (AND black!) people are PREJUDICED to some extent and very few whites are truly racist (note that this would be going against the currently widely accepted definition of racism, hatred or stereotyping based on race). That would just lighten the weight of racism people commit by euphemizing it by "prejudice", so it's pointless.

People find racism to be wrong and disgusting *primarily* (not exclusively) because it is an incredibly bigoted and corrupt way to look at people. Refusing to call that racism takes away the moral and personal connotations, be it for white people or minorities. Removing those connotations for a SINGLE race, however, is also racist (by my definition).

The meaning behind words can change over time. (An example: Sometime in history, one would be considered very wealthy to have a telephone in their house- now billions of people own phones. In this incident, the meaning behind "wealth" has changed.) I see no reason to disagree with your perception of what racism was initially, but that doesn't transfer into today's world and what people perceive today to be racism.
 

dlauv

Member
I think deconstructing racism as something that was made by and can only be used by the oppressing class is more-so political than entirely logical from an etymological standpoint. For instance, in reverse cases it's called "prejudice" rather than "racism." Why? Why not call a spade a spade?

By arguing that anyone can be racist, you're merely enabling the oppressive and flawed concept of race that was created by the oppressing class, simultaneously taking power and voice away from the oppressed class. In essence, perpetuating (ergo, contributing to) systemic racism.
 
What would you describe the discriminatory/dehumanizing behavior's between nonwhite cultures as then kame-sennin?

I spent a lot of time up thread explaining what "racism" means and what its historical context is. Racism as a term was coined to describe white supremacy as it emerged during the era of European domination. Racism could not have existed prior to this point because the concept of race did not exist before.

At no point did I ever say that prior to the classification of people into races (which is pseudoscience), that there was no animosity between people on the basis of culture, region, religion, or homeland. The Chinese, for instance, referred to the steppe peoples that bordered them as "uncooked rice", meaning not yet civilized, for thousands of years. This was prejudice and it was a type of supremacy, but it wasn't racism because the Han Chinese did not define themselves or others into racial categories.

There's a shit ton of history regarding the pseudoscience that created modern racial categories and modern racism. Some of it has been discussed and much more of it is readily accessible. I think at this point, people are simply choosing to ignore that.
 

Figboy79

Aftershock LA
This thread...O_O

Here's what I don't get. We all understand that what the teacher is saying is factually incorrect, so why are we arguing again? Anyone with a working brain knows that not all white people are racist.

It is true, for America, at least, that all white people are born into institutional and systemic racism in this country (as are all minorities). This has an affect on their lives, and many white people (in particular white males) benefit from these racist institutions. Minorities do not benefit from institutional racism, in particular black people. Just because white people benefit, doesn't mean they are racist, or inherently racist. That's absurd.

I think the problem this teacher got into is that he was trying to discuss an issue that has no room for ambiguity, especially when discussing that issue with high school students, who aren't always going to catch nuance. Or it could be that this teacher really does feel this way, and that's unfortunate. The point of raising awareness of institutional racism and white privilege isn't to make white people feel bad or hate themselves. It's to highlight an issue that is woven into the fabric of this country that has negatively affected minorities for generations, and stamp it out. An attack on systemic and institutional racism isn't an attack on white people. What upsets me is how instantly defensive some people get when the topic is brought up for discussion. You don't have to go on and on about how you aren't racist. If you aren't racist, you aren't racist, and obviously, the conversation isn't about you, specifically, but an overall racist institution that is hurting your fellow countrymen and women. If you aren't part of the problem, bravo. Now lets see if we can all be part of the solution, instead of getting defensive and turning a conversation that is not about you, into a conversation that is about you.
 
I know many seem to be upset at the idea of the word racist and racism being dulled.

Given the reactions surely you can see how that might actually move the conversation about race forward. How can there be discussion if being racist is huge judgement that makes people so butt hurt and defensive at it's very implication. This thread should be enough to show you that you don't even have to utter the words themselves to cause this behavior.

We need to change the expectations that go with that word. Else every conversation about race is destroyed by white fragility. Between white fragility and the quantum locked nature of racism it's like you're not even giving any one a chance to speak meaningfully on the subject.
 
I feel you, but can you cite something that talks about racism before the 13th century? It seems like you're arguing off an assumption you've made (that I've also made my whole life) while kame-sennin has clearly read up on colonialism and imperialism.

I'm asking this because all I know is what was in that Derek Black article on The Washington Post, and I want to learn more, because this isn't something I've ever looked up past what was in books that tore down Columbus:

Examples can be found with a quick Wikipedia search on racial categories.

European medieval models of race generally mixed Classical ideas with the notion that humanity as a whole was descended from Shem, Ham and Japheth, the three sons of Noah, producing distinct Semitic (Asiatic), Hamitic (African), and Japhetic (Indo-European) peoples. This theory dates back to the Babylonian Talmud, which states that "the descendants of Ham are cursed by being black, and [it] depicts Ham as a sinful man and his progeny as degenerates."

I spent a lot of time up thread explaining what "racism" means and what its historical context is. Racism as a term was coined to describe white supremacy as it emerged during the era of European domination. Racism could not have existed prior to this point because the concept of race did not exist before.

At no point did I ever say that prior to the classification of people into races (which is pseudoscience), that there was no animosity between people on the basis of culture, region, religion, or homeland. The Chinese, for instance, referred to the steppe peoples that bordered them as "uncooked rice", meaning not yet civilized, for thousands of years. This was prejudice and it was a type of supremacy, but it wasn't racism because the Han Chinese did not define themselves or others into racial categories.

There's a shit ton of history regarding the pseudoscience that created modern racial categories and modern racism. Some of it has been discussed and much more of it is readily accessible. I think at this point, people are simply choosing to ignore that.

The concept of race is based on pseudoscience most certainly, I think that is something people should be more informed on. Here is a good PBS essay on the topic. Either way though, race is now a socially accepted concept. Would you not say that modern day bigotry between nonwhite cultures constitutes racism? Is racism something only white people are capable of? Your strict interpretation of the word seems to suggest that.
 

KonradLaw

Member
Its hard for me to admit and I hate it about myself. But I'm not going to sit here and say I've never been at a sketchy gas station and been automatically a little worried about some black guy in a hoodie.
s.

You shouldn't beat yourself up. It;s those damn hoodies.

People with hoodies are scary no matter the race. I can go weeks without seeing anyone black and whenever I pass somebody at night with a hoodie on I get a little nervous.

They even invented whole movie genre called hoodie horror :D
 
Super late reply:

It's not about good and bad. All white people (and most black people) are racists, that is to say, anti-black. But subconscious anti-blackness alone doesn't make one a bad person.



2016-07-10-1468192971-6586365-ScreenShot20160710at6.40.32PM.png




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anna-...d-language-of-white-fragility_b_10909350.html

I think this is an excellent point and agree with everything here, except that I interpret it as implying that we need to reaffirm the true definition of racism and I disagree with that. I think that word has been poisoned beyond recovery, and that we need a new word that allows people to be more responsive to subconscious and inherent racism, so we can address these problems instead of falling into infighting over semantics.
 
I think deconstructing racism as something that was made by and can only be used by the oppressing class is more-so political than entirely logical from an etymological standpoint. For instance, in reverse cases it's called "prejudice" rather than "racism." Why? Why not call a spade a spade?

By arguing that anyone can be racist, you're merely enabling the oppressive and flawed concept of race that was created by the oppressing class, simultaneously taking power and voice away from the oppressed class. In essence, perpetuating (ergo, contributing to) systemic racism.

If you're tying racism into a person's sense of superiority over another due to their heritage, it'll be hard for it to apply to an oppressed group. That oppressed group would have to think themselves superior to the oppressor. Now if you tell me their being prejudice to a group of people that they feel directly or indirectly oppresses them, then I'm with you 100%.

I like to call a spade a spade too ... so long as it's actually a spade.
 

rjinaz

Member
From my own experience in life as a White man, I think it's mostly true. As soon as I was a kid and learned that Blacks used to be slaves and that there are more of us than there are them, I couldn't help but feel as if they were some how different than me, maybe even a little inferior. It's history and it doesn't go away. I think it is human nature for every race to be inherently racist, but it's more so with Whites in this country because of that history.

As I grew I started to challenge those feelings. I never wanted anybody to feel uncomfortable so I never was an openly racist person, I just had thoughts that I didn't necessarily want. It doesn't help that most the people I know WOULD say racist things and not even consider themselves racist because they didn't say the N word. That is a large problem in this country currently. People not understanding what racism is.

Am I racist today? I don't think so, because I actively work against any racist thoughts inherit in my mind. I choose not to be, by dismissing and thinking critically about faulty logic, so therefore I am not. I also think from perspectives other than my own and am open to discussions. It's all we can do, Black or White or somebody else.

Do most White people do that? Well honestly no they do not.
 
That is akin to saying that all white people believe, as part of their world view, that black people are inferior.

They do. Virtually all white people, and most black people, do in fact believe this. That's what happens when you are born into a 500 year old white supremacist system. The notion of black (and red and yellow) inferiority is baked into our culture and the average person has no means to extract those elements and view the world through an anti-racist lens. It takes years of learning and listening to understand the way society perpetuates racism in countless large and small ways, and to then slowly extract yourself from that. I deal with my own racism towards people who look like me every day.

Is racism something only white people are capable of? Your strict interpretation of the word seems to suggest that.

People of color can and are racist towards other people of color all the goddamned time. See; virtually every black cop. Blacks, asians, etc. absorb white supremacist ideology the same way white people do. But when a person of color is shitty to a white person, it's not racism, it's just shittyness. That's because people of color have no access to a power structure like white supremacy that can amplify the harm they do to a white person:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CmzT4OV-w0

I think this is an excellent point and agree with everything here, except that I interpret it as implying that we need to reaffirm the true definition of racism and I disagree with that. I think that word has been poisoned beyond recovery, and that we need a new word that allows people to be more responsive to subconscious and inherent racism, so we can address these problems instead of falling into infighting over semantics.

I've seen 'anti-blackness' thrown around as the go-to word for precisely that reason.
 
People of color can and are racist towards other people of color all the goddamned time. See; virtually every black cop. Blacks, asians, etc. absorb white supremacist ideology the same way white people do. But when a person of color is shitty to a white person, it's not racism, it's just shittyness. That's because people of color have no access to a power structure like white supremacy that can amplify the harm they do to a white person:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CmzT4OV-w0

Ok. It had seemed as though you were suggesting otherwise so I was just asking you to clarify. In your opinion being racist requires that your race has held a supremacist ideology in the past then? If that is the case then we can respectfully agree to disagree. Many Asian cultures, Japan in particular, held ideologies that considered themselves to be ideologically and biologically superior to their opponents., yet you would consider a Japanese person to not be able to be racist towards a white person.
 

NBtoaster

Member
I feel you, but can you cite something that talks about racism before the 13th century? It seems like you're arguing off an assumption you've made (that I've also made my whole life) while kame-sennin has clearly read up on colonialism and imperialism.

While researching the Roman attitude towards the Gauls and Germans I remember coming across this book:The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity.

There was racism in the ancient world, after all. This groundbreaking book refutes the common belief that the ancient Greeks and Romans harbored "ethnic and cultural," but not racial, prejudice. It does so by comprehensively tracing the intellectual origins of racism back to classical antiquity. Benjamin Isaac's systematic analysis of ancient social prejudices and stereotypes reveals that some of those represent prototypes of racism--or proto-racism--which in turn inspired the early modern authors who developed the more familiar racist ideas. He considers the literature from classical Greece to late antiquity in a quest for the various forms of the discriminatory stereotypes and social hatred that have played such an important role in recent history and continue to do so in modern society.
 

dlauv

Member
If you're tying racism into a person's sense of superiority over another due to their heritage, it'll be hard for it to apply to an oppressed group. That oppressed group would have to think themselves superior to the oppressor. Now if you tell me their being prejudice to a group of people that they feel directly or indirectly oppresses them, then I'm with you 100%.

I like to call a spade a spade too ... so long as it's actually a spade.

I honestly don't know what you're trying to say, sorry. Maybe I'll have better clarity after some sleep.

I'll try to rephrase just in case. Etymologically, racism is now commonly known as prejudice against skin color. The growing-in-popularity sociological definition of racism is prejudice against skin color + power, and the reason being that race/racism is a product of white supremacy in order to maintain supremacy. In America, white people are seen has having majority power. In that sense, no PoC could be racist to a white person, merely prejudice. The "spade" question was rhetorical and in the context of the ongoing discussion.

By arguing that anyone can be racist, you're merely validating race as a concept, and subverting the power indifference between classes of people by feigning some form of equality. In essence, perpetuating (ergo, contributing to) systemic racism.

The previously mentioned sociological definition is more politically useful in terms of problem-solving and abolishing racism, because it highlights the problem.
 
Etymologically, racism is now commonly known as prejudice against skin color.

Prior to the 1950's, no one viewed racism this way. I mean, can you imagine a white southerner criticizing a black sharecropper for being an (anti-white) racist? It's absurd. 'Hating someone because of the color of their skin' is a moderate liberal slogan used to challenge the irrationality of white supremacy. It was an intentional oversimplification of what white supremacy actually is. This concept was put fourth to argue that everything racism stood for - the complex pseudoscience of black inferiority - had no basis, and therefor the only thing separating the races was melanin.

But racists at the time didn't view things that way at all. A racist in 1950 would tell you that they didn't hate black people because of the color of their skin. They would say, 'I don't hate niggers at all. But they're not on the same level as the white man. They're not capable of accomplishing what we can. When left to their own devices, they do nothing. So, if a nigger forgets the natural order of things, if he forgets what his place is in society, it's a white man's job to put him in his place.'

Ok. It had seemed as though you were suggesting otherwise so I was just asking you to clarify. In your opinion being racist requires that your race has held a supremacist ideology in the past then? If that is the case then we can respectfully agree to disagree. Many Asian cultures, Japan in particular, held ideologies that considered themselves to be ideologically and biologically superior to their opponents., yet you would consider a Japanese person to not be able to be racist towards a white person.

Japanese racism towards mainland Asians in the early 20th century was a direct reaction to the European colonization of Asia. The Japanese were deathly afraid of being carved up like China was and that fear turned into contempt towards a culture they once admired. The Japanese also made the decision that the best way to avoid becoming a colony was to become a colonizer, and the aforementioned contempt mixed well with Japan's new love for expansionism.

In short, Japanese racism towards China, Korea, et al was simply Japan doing what other white supremacist countries had done in order to benefit from white supremacy rather than be destroyed by it. On the micro level, this is what many African-american police officers do when they join the force and treat black citizens even more harshly then their white counter-parts do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom