Support NeoGAF

[Henkka]

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

It seems that at this point, the argument is simply about what is the correct definition of racism. So, it's semantics. If you define racism as white supremacy and nothing else, you're right. You can define it any way you want. Here's the thing, though...

Words don't have "correct" definitions. They only have mutually accepted definitions that are currently used.

The word 'racism', by itself, is just a set of vocals and consonants. What it means is determined by what people understand it to mean. As it stands, most people understand the word 'racism' to mean discrimination and/or prejudice based on race. So a black person can be racist toward and Asian person, and a Hispanic can be racist towards a white person.

You can argue that your definition is the "correct" one till you're blue in the face, it won't make a lick of difference. You can't mount an argument for what the definition of a word should be, since all definitions are arbitrary.

So you can redefine it as long as everyone else understands the definition you're using, but I question your motivation for doing so. What's the benefit of using the word 'racism' only when it's about whites being shitty toward people of colour, and using something like 'racial prejudice' when it involves other groups? What's the significance?

 

[Funyarinpa]

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.

In that context, then, I suppose that a new term for that racist perspective imposed upon its people by the American society would be useful. (Racism is a term that encompasses more than White-minority relationships.)

Calling a person racist requires willful hatred of a race, in my opinion. That is NOT to say that non-racist people can't do racist things, because they indeed can, and I think that the social structure you mentioned falls under this latter category. Also, many (most?) of these people are trying to not be racist on a conscious level (many of them white), and I do not think that it is right, fair or accurate to describe a person who aims to rid themselves of racial prejudice and racist thoughts as "a racist person". Denoting a person as such is very condemnatory of their personal merit as I perceive it, and if it is not within the ability of anyone to avoid it, then I feel that using such condemnatory language on broad demographics is both misplaced and unfair.

 

[Whom_Gods_Annoy]

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.

Very true, no argument there. But don't forget the Japanese considered themselves superior to the west as well. I can't remember the specifics, but the Japanese jingoism/militarism of the early 20th century was spurred on by the belief that Japan would become the great unifier of Asia, and in a great war against the western powers their ideological and biological superiority to west would bring the east victory and usher in a new golden age ect. ect.

This type of dogma would result in Japan's extreme cruelty of white POW's (see Bataan death march). In my opinion it was clear racism that spurred such brutality.

 

[NBtoaster]

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.

In what way was China carved up by Europe? European settlements were very strictly limited in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

 

[dlauv]

"Racism" is a circular concept.

"Racism" was created as a result of the concept of "race," originally created by white supremacy.

The current definition of racism is a result of systemic racism and perpetuates the concept of "other races."

White people saying that everyone can be racist quiets the voices of the oppressed because white people are by and large rarely the victims of racially motivated action and most often the beneficiaries. It's similar to saying #notallwhitepeople or #alllivesmatter.

White victims of racially motivated action are the result of white supremacy's creation of "race" in the first place.

 

[Raylan]

‘To be white is to be racist, period'

Jesus Christ..... this guy can't be serious

 

[Whom_Gods_Annoy]

In what way was China carved up by Europe?

In the late 19th, early 20th centuries the most powerful western powers (and Japan) vied over carving out "spheres of influence" in China. The Boxer rebellion was a harsh kick to the teeth for country. Combined with the opium trade, Europe, without ever getting into a real land war with the country, managed to put China in shambles.

 

[ThisGuy]

"Racism" is a circular concept.

"Racism" was created as a result of the concept of "race," originally created by white supremacy.

The current definition of racism is a result of systemic racism and perpetuates the concept of "other races."

White people saying that everyone can be racist quiets the voices of the oppressed because white people are by and large rarely the victims of racially motivated action. It's similar to saying #notallwhitepeople or #alllivesmatter.

White victims of racially motivated action are the result of white supremacy's creation of "race" in the first place.

So if a white person is assaulted or murdered for being white, it's not racist? And stating it is racist, by definition it is by the way, is not quieting non-whites who face racism. That is ridiculous. You cannot claim to support equality and support this.

This is not taking away from minorities. Nor is that belief creating a level playing field. This belief is just crazy, and I'm glad the laws of America side with me and not this ridiculous belief.

If it's like saying all lives matter, or taking from non-whites, explain it.

I also don't understand how just because white people put a word on race, that it absolves those who aren't white yet actively participate in it in this context.

 

[uncelestial]

To make it absolutely clear, racism is not the hatred of someone else for the color of their skin.

Great post generally, but it's a shame you kinda ruined it by putting a wrong thing in red text.

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

You're claiming that only definition #2 out of the three given is real, which of course is not true. But what makes your post otherwise great is explaining the likely intent on the teacher's part to explain racism as "a political or social system."

Racism is an overloaded term; there should probably be a separate term to describe the systems built on top of racist beliefs -- a racial equivalent to "patriarchy" for male supremacy. ("Aryarchy?")

What makes this teacher's proclamation so bad is that he is clearly talking about individual people, which makes it very difficult to hone the message down to "white people are participants in a racist system, even if they are trying to be good actors within it." To remove talking about the system in the original message makes it sound like he's referring to the internal life of all white people as being rife with bigotry and, as definitions 1 and 3 say, feelings of "superiority" and "prejudice."

Anyway, you're on the right track but the confusing direction of criticism and use of an overloaded term is clouding things a bit.

 

[Funyarinpa]

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

I find this post absurd on several levels. I will try to articulate my main points.

1. Aren't the "you can't be racist against white people" supporters the very same people who hate the "I don't see race" argument? If validating the existence of races contributes to racism, isn't that stance self-contradictory?

2. The origin of the concept of race does not fully determine who will adopt the concept. Thus, race being (allegedly) a white invention does not relegate the concept of racism to white people. "Whites invent race -> another society, individual or culture adopts the concept -> discriminates based on what they perceive to be race"- that sounds like racism to me.

3. That definition of racism is solely based on white people, so it does not hold up in any relationship between two people or societies of non-white ethnicity. Thus, you have to either relegate the definition of racism or relegate your statement that one cannot be racist against white people to societies with white people. I am not seeing anyone do either.

4. Why not find a new word for your own definition of racism? What does this concept of yours have in common with the regular definition of racism that it has to replace the known denotation of "racism" and not have another name?

5. In a racist society, races are taken as existent (since the society wouldn't be able to discriminate people otherwise). Acknowledging that any race as defined by this social system to be able to be racist is not racist, because the oppressors in this system also define themselves as a race and other "races" can still harbor racial hatred for them. White people could have come up with the concept, but that does NOT mean that people of other "races" won't adopt the same outlook and discriminate based on race. Acknowledging that anyone can be racist is actually simply acknowledging that non-white people can also accept the race concept and harbor hate based on that concept.

6. In a social structure that discriminates on race, what is perceived as "race" actually MATTERS, regardless of whether it has scientific/historical basis or not. Individuals and communities are defined in SOME manner with regard to races in a society where races exist. Being willing to discuss a racial topic in this context does not propagate systemic racism as you imply, it simply acknowledges its existence and agrees to the bounds of that concept.

 

[dlauv]

So if a white person is assaulted or murdered for being white, it's not racist? And stating it is racist, by definition it is by the way, is not quieting non-whites who face racism. That is ridiculous. You cannot claim to support equality and support this.

This is not taking away from minorities. Nor is that belief creating a level playing field.

Followers of the sociological definition would say it's "prejudiced action," rather than "racist." Etymologically, practically speaking, it would be racist. However, the original fault of the attack would be the institution of white supremacy which created "race" in the first place. The sociological definition is political, not entirely practical. It may seem navel-gazing and impractical, but I think it provides for more useful discussion about race relations.

A black man does something racially motivated against a white man and what happens. (?)

A white man does something racially motivated against a black man and what happens. (Zimmerman)

Therein lies the importance of using the sociological definition.

 

[Funyarinpa]

Followers of the sociological definition would say it's "prejudiced action," rather than "racist." Etymologically, practically speaking, it would be racist. However, the original fault of the attack would be the institution of white supremacy which created "race" in the first place. The sociological definition is political, not entirely practical. It may seem navel-gazing and impractical, but I think it provides for more useful discussion about race relations.

A black man does something racially motivated against a white man and what happens. (?)

A white man does something racially motivated against a black man and what happens. (Zimmerman)

Therein lies the importance of using the sociological definition.

So to you, a black murderer who murders based on race isn't as guilty as a white man who does the same.

...That is a really fucked up perspective however you look at it. "But if his race hadn't created race, he would not have died!" sounds like shifting the blame to me. Being oppressed does not lessen your blame if you are a FUCKING RACIAL MURDERER.

Also by your logic the white murderer's situation is partly political as well, for the same system would have influenced that racial murderer as well.

At least acknowledge that in this case a "prejudiced action" is just as fucked up and contemptible as "racist action".

 

[uncelestial]

So to you, a black murderer who murders based on race isn't as guilty as a white man who does the same.

At least acknowledge that in this case a "prejudiced action" is just as fucked up and contemptible as "racist action".

I think he *is* saying that, we're just talking about whether a racially-motivated murder of a white man should be called "racist" since it wasn't motivated by a participant in a racist system who is, by committing murder, enforcing that system's worldview.

I do think a term besides racism would be useful to talk about the social system of white supremacy. Would make it much easier to leave the term "racism" alone to the simpler definition of "personally-held prejudicial bigotry."

 

[Nepenthe]

So to you, a black murderer who murders based on race isn't as guilty as a white man who does the same.

I don't think you could've missed the point any more than you already did, which is especially ironic considering he provided an example of a white man who went free for murdering a black child for basically being black.

 

[Funyarinpa]

I don't think you could've missed the point any more than you already did, which is especially ironic considering he provided an example of a white man who went free for murdering a black child for basically being black.

I didn't see the relevance of the example. It's an example of racial injustice, that's for sure- but to me that statement doesn't connect to the "original fault" statement at all. I'd like it if you elaborated on what exactly is the relation of the example to their point.

 

[Koodo]

So to you, a black murderer who murders based on race isn't as guilty as a white man who does the same.

...That is a really fucked up perspective however you look at it. "But if his race hadn't created race, he would not have died!" sounds like shifting the blame to me. Being oppressed does not lessen your blame if you are a FUCKING RACIAL MURDERER.

Also by your logic the white murderer's situation is partly political as well, for the same system would have influenced that racial murderer as well.

At least acknowledge that in this case a "prejudiced action" is just as fucked up and contemptible as "racist action".

I'm pretty sure that comparison was to show a black man would bear the full brunt of the justice system, whereas the white man would walk away as an innocent man cleared of any wrongdoing.

Racially motivated actions do not have the same impact, nor are they even treated equally, across the races. It would be incorrect to say a racially motivated act by a black person is the same as that of a white person – hence the increasing relevance of the sociological definition of race.

 

[Cindi Mayweather]

Doing me proud.

 

[Breakage]

As a non-white person I think the teacher's statement is utterly ridiculous.

 

[Nepenthe]

I didn't see the relevance of the example. It's an example of racial injustice, that's for sure- but to me that statement doesn't connect to the "original fault" statement at all. I'd like it if you elaborated on what exactly is the relation of the example to their point.

I'm pretty sure that comparison was to show a black man would bear the full brunt of the justice system, whereas the white man would walk away as an innocent man cleared of any wrongdoing.

The poster never actually made a judgement about the presumed guilt of the victims on the basis of race from an ethical or legal perspective. They're presenting a sociological argument about how the country typically reacts to the same crimes perpetrated by people of different races and the reasons for why this is, in order to further clarify more academic distinctions between different terms and concepts like "racism" that are taken for granted in more casual discussions like this. They then used the murder example and mentioned Zimmerman to further illustrate this.

And in response to this, you flew off the handle by self-righteously accusing the person of not being all that fussed about murder when a black person does it to a white person which, again, is further ironic because they simultaneously provided a relevant example of a white person who got away scot-free with racialized murder which clearly wasn't the issue to you.

 

[Zaru]

Lmao at these "sociological" mental gymnastics.

What actually happened:

"Okay, we did it guys! 'Racist' is a powerful rhetorical weapon and highly negative label now"
"But wait a second... doesn't that mean we can be called racist too if we act on our racial prejudices?"
"Oh shit
QUICK
REDEFINE IT SO IT CAN ONLY APPLY TO WHITE PEOPLE"

You gotta live with the monster you created, sorry.

 

[Cindi Mayweather]

Not every white person was taught racist thinking when raised.

But every white person interacts with a society that tells them they're superior. If you have watched tv, watched movies, stepped outside been to school;etc you will be influenced beyond your parents grasp. So you'll have white people who have "black friends" but somehow justify the murder of a 12 year old kid with a toy gun. Because all white peoole are racist. There's no fucking way any white person is going to come away from a lifetime of thinking they're the hottest shit in the world and not come to the conclusion that they're superior. Louis CK put it perfectly. That's not a judgement but a statement of fact. Now, can a white person and I be friends? Sure. If they recognize that they probably have weird ideas on race and are willing to undo a racist white society. Otherwise they can step the fuck off.

 

[Nepenthe]

Lmao at these "sociological" mental gymnastics.

What actually happened:

"Okay, we did it guys! 'Racist' is a powerful rhetorical weapon and highly negative label now"
"But wait a second... doesn't that mean we can be called racist too if we act on our racial prejudices?"
"Oh shit
QUICK
REDEFINE IT SO IT CAN ONLY APPLY TO WHITE PEOPLE"

You gotta live with the monster you created, sorry.

I don't think it was minorities and sociologists who turned "racist" into a slur for white people.

 

[Cagey]

But every white person interacts with a society that tells them they're superior. If you have watched tv, watched movies, stepped outside been to school;etc you will be influenced beyond your parents grasp. So you'll have white people who have "black friends" but somehow justify the murder of a 12 year old kid with a toy gun. Because all white peoole are racist. There's no fucking way any white person is going to come away from a lifetime of thinking they're the hottest shit in the world and not come to the conclusion that they're superior. Louis CK put it perfectly.

I suspect you'll find plenty of white people here who would personally claim they have not reached those conclusions and did not spend their lives believing they're the hottest shit in the word.

Words have meaning. "All" means the whole. "Any" means one or more. You might want to pick different words.

 

[Funyarinpa]

I'm pretty sure that comparison was to show a black man would bear the full brunt of the justice system, whereas the white man would walk away as an innocent man cleared of any wrongdoing.

Racially motivated actions do not have the same impact, nor are they even treated equally, across the races. It would be incorrect to say a racially motivated act by a black person is the same as that of a white person – hence the increasing relevance of the sociological definition of race.

Regarding the bolded: How do you think that that would apply to a race-based murder? Someone was murdered for their race in both cases. Do you think the gravity of that act is dependent on the aftermath, the impact, or the treatment of the culprit? That since the crimes are treated unequally, they are not equally heavy crimes? That would assume that the justice system is wholly fair and just, and I think we can all agree that that is not the case, especially in the US.

I see the "their aftermaths will differ" argument. I see the "Their overall impacts will differ" argument. I vehemently disagree thst either of them can influence the nature of the act. I also think that there is a huge difference between "two racial acts are not the same" and "the aftermath of the two racial acts are not the same".

Think of it like this:
Say that, out of hatred, I am assaulted by two people. Assailant A tries to shoot me, but his gun jams and he is unable to kill me. Assailant B's gun, however, works perfectly and he manages to kill me.

The trial outcomes in the above example is whether the gun fires or not in this metaphor.
Both Assailants tried to kill me out of pure hatred. One failed and the other succeeded. Does that make Assailant A any less hateful than B? No, it does not. The aftermath of an act does not determine how racist it is. That would be fine reasoning if, going with court verdicts, all verdicts were handed out equally to all races depending solely on the crime and not their race, but that is not the case in reality, and thus, there is no correlation between whether something is racist and the social reaction to it.


Edit: To clarify, does the "sociological" definition of racism focus on the "aftermath of the act" while the conventional definition focuses on the act itself?

 

[Cindi Mayweather]

I suspect you'll find plenty of white people here who would personally claim they have not reached those conclusions and did not spend their lives believing they're the hottest shit in the word.

Words have meaning. "All" means the whole. "Any" means one or more. You might want to pick different words.

Just because you disagree with that doesn't mean you don't ultimately have some other issue. I've seen it time and time again.

I'm going to use all. In a society that informs white superiority, "all" is apt. Does this affect only white people? Not by a damn sight. But unless you're willing to work on undoing this problem we have nothing to talk about. Does this make white people bad because they're all racist? Nah. But they're certainly racist.

The problem is that white people have equated being racist with the worst thing in the world. It doesn't make you a bad person. I'm sure there's lots of otherwise cool people who for reason make passing judgements about other races.

Donald Trump's rise gives truth to this statement. If it's not all, it's certainly most. And since its most, you might as well say all, because those people who are racist are informed by the very same society of the supposedly "not racist" whites.

 

[Whom_Gods_Annoy]

But every white person interacts with a society that tells them they're superior. If you have watched tv, watched movies, stepped outside been to school;etc you will be influenced beyond your parents grasp. So you'll have white people who have "black friends" but somehow justify the murder of a 12 year old kid with a toy gun. Because all white peoole are racist. There's no fucking way any white person is going to come away from a lifetime of thinking they're the hottest shit in the world and not come to the conclusion that they're superior. Louis CK put it perfectly. That's not a judgement but a statement of fact. Now, can a white person and I be friends? Sure. If they recognize that they probably have weird ideas on race and are willing to undo a racist white society. Otherwise they can step the fuck off.

Two things

1. Society tells white people they are superior. Sure. You then make the leap that all white people must agree with it then, which is disingenuous.

2. If a white person recognizes that they are born into a racist society with weird perceptions of race and tries to do things to fix that, they would still be racist still based on yours and the teacher's logic, which is dumb to me.

 

[Funyarinpa]

The poster never actually made a judgement about the presumed guilt of the victims on the basis of race from an ethical or legal perspective. They're presenting a sociological argument about how the country typically reacts to the same crimes perpetrated by people of different races and the reasons for why this is, in order to further clarify more academic distinctions between different terms and concepts like "racism" that are taken for granted in more casual discussions like this. They then used the murder example and mentioned Zimmerman to further illustrate this.

And in response to this, you flew off the handle by self-righteously accusing the person of not being all that fussed about murder when a black person does it to a white person which, again, is further ironic because they simultaneously provided a relevant example of a white person who got away scot-free with racialized murder which clearly wasn't the issue to you.

Thanks for the clarification. Although I would like it if you also refrained from personal judgments like "which clearly wasn't the issue to you".

Edit: I think a reason why there is so much controversy around this sociological definition of racism and the" all white people are racist" remarks is that it redefines a term with a very negative connotation and claims a particular race is all participating in this same term, before stripping the term of its previous negative connotation. (I'm assuming that the "you can't be racist against white people" statement is taken together with "being racist does not make you bad because it's imposed on you by society".)

 

[Darth Ghandi]

Not sure what that teacher ment but he sure did express his ideas very badly.

Also regarding racism against whites I don't think people should confuse prejudiced with racism. They aren't interchangeable.

 

[Koodo]

Regarding the bolded: How do you think that that would apply to a race-based murder? Someone was murdered for their race in both cases. Do you think the gravity of that act is dependent on the aftermath, the impact, or the treatment of the culprit? That since the crimes are treated unequally, they are not equally heavy crimes? That would assume that the justice system is wholly fair and just, and I think we can all agree that that is not the case, especially in the US.

I see the "their aftermaths will differ" argument. I see the "Their overall impacts will differ" argument. I vehemently disagree thst either of them can influence the nature of the act. I also think that there is a huge difference between "two racial acts are not the same" and "the aftermath of the two racial acts are not the same".

Think of it like this:
Say that, out of hatred, I am assaulted by two people. Assailant A tries to shoot me, but his gun jams and he is unable to kill me. Assailant B's gun, however, works perfectly and he manages to kill me.

The trial outcomes in the above example is whether the gun fires or not in this metaphor.
Both Assailants tried to kill me out of pure hatred. One failed and the other succeeded. Does that make Assailant A any less hateful than B? No, it does not. The aftermath of an act does not determine how racist it is. That would be fine reasoning if, going with court verdicts, all verdicts were handed out equally to all races depending solely on the crime and not their race, but that is not the case in reality, and thus, there is no correlation between whether something is racist and the social reaction to it.

There is a difference between "two racial acts are not the same" and "the aftermath of the two racial acts are not the same" because you are viewing it through a lens that is aware of systemic oppression and power imbalances. However, that is not the case with the court systems of the US or basically any country in this world, nor the modus operandi of the overall society that supports these systems. Hence from a sociological perspective, they are not the same acts – society deems atrocities committed by white people as often not being atrocities at all, whereas minorities are often judged to the full extent of the law or worse. Arguing how this should be does little to reflect on the present reality of the situation – that racially motivated actions between the races are not the same due to the power imbalance between them.

 

[ActWan]

I don't even know what a white person IS anymore.

 

[Nepenthe]

Thanks for the clarification. Although I would like it if you also refrained from personal judgments like "which clearly wasn't the issue to you".

It wasn't the issue to you. The issue to you was your presumption that the poster believed that black people who murder white people for being white are in any context less guilty than white people who murder black people for being black.

 

[Breakage]

But every white person interacts with a society that tells them they're superior. If you have watched tv, watched movies, stepped outside been to school;etc you will be influenced beyond your parents grasp. So you'll have white people who have "black friends" but somehow justify the murder of a 12 year old kid with a toy gun. Because all white peoole are racist. There's no fucking way any white person is going to come away from a lifetime of thinking they're the hottest shit in the world and not come to the conclusion that they're superior. Louis CK put it perfectly. That's not a judgement but a statement of fact. Now, can a white person and I be friends? Sure. If they recognize that they probably have weird ideas on race and are willing to undo a racist white society. Otherwise they can step the fuck off.

Damn, whole load of gross generalizations there and it's your opinion not fact. By the way not every white person thinks they're the "hottest shit". I'm sure the white people in this world suffering with depression or any other serious mental health problems don't walk around thinking they are superior.

Your sweeping generalizations are simply extraordinary. I wonder if you use products and services invented/distrubuted by white people. If you do, how can you shamelessly do so while holding such an opinion? It seems like you have a deep-seated hatred for humans who happened to be born white thru no fault of their own.

 

[dlauv]

I appreciate you formatting and numbering your concerns. I'll respond after some sleep.

Nepenthe and Koodo did a good job clarifying my other post.

 

[LordKasual]

I don't think you could've missed the point any more than you already did, which is especially ironic considering he provided an example of a white man who went free for murdering a black child for basically being black.

Zimmerman getting away with murdering a kid off a racial stereotype is horrible, and an indication of systemic racism at work enabling him to do so. But a white kid being killed by a black person in retaliation to this isn't any more or less forgivable, regardless of whether he walks for it. (He wont. But still.) The unfortunate result of such a long-running and deep rooted racial issue is that, yes, some communities of black people have some really racist views against white people. That may be easier to empathize with, considering minorities have valid excuses for holding those views, but no, that doesn't mean we get to call it something different. Hatred is hatred. So yes, racially motivated crimes from black people and white people are indeed coming from completely different places. But I don't see what we could possibly gain by assuming one is worse than another, it's the same damn thing. We CAN use that knowledge to help bring light to the differences in the realities of being white vs. black in such a world....But such a broad stroke isn't going to do us any good in the long run IMO.


If you walk up to a random suburban white guy and tell him that he's definitely racist, and that he's the only one who can be truly be racist, he's either going to be confused at what you're talking about, insulted and get defensive, or acknowledge what he knows about his privileges. The chance of the last one happening is pretty fucking slim, and there is no shortage of communities (especially now during the BLM vs. ALM shit) who will coddle him and tell him that, "no, they're race baiting hypocrites, just ignore them".


So, that's a losing strategy. Just the way I see it, anyway.

 

[Cagey]

Just because you disagree with that doesn't mean you don't ultimately have some other issue. I've seen it time and time again.

I'm going to use all. In a society that informs white superiority, "all" is apt. Does this affect only white people? Not by a damn sight. But unless you're willing to work on undoing this problem we have nothing to talk about. Does this make white people bad because they're all racist? Nah. But they're certainly racist.

The problem is that white people have equated being racist with the worst thing in the world. It doesn't make you a bad person. I'm sure there's lots of otherwise cool people who for reason make passing judgements about other races.

Donald Trump's rise gives truth to this statement. If it's not all, it's certainly most. And since its most, you might as well say all, because those people who are racist are informed by the very same society of the supposedly "not racist" whites.

"All" may be a word suited for the conversation here, given its been prone to posters gleefully indulging in insulting hyperbole to make a point, but that still doesn't make the statement "all" correct.

And what sort of "work to undo this problem" would qualify a person to talk about it? What sort of bar must a person clear?

 

[Henkka]

Not sure what that teacher ment but he sure did express his ideas very badly.

Also regarding racism against whites I don't think people should confuse prejudiced with racism. They aren't interchangeable.

Why make the distinction? I'd be okay with saying that whites don't experience systematic/institutional racism in the US. But saying they can't experience racism on an individual level seems off to me.

It's like people are saying racism means only systematic racism, and nothing else.

 

[Funyarinpa]

There is a difference between "two racial acts are not the same" and "the aftermath of the two racial acts are not the same" because you are viewing it through a lens that is aware of systemic oppression and power imbalances. However, that is not the case with the court systems of the US or basically any country in this world, nor the modus operandi of the overall society that supports these systems. Hence from a sociological perspective, they are not the same acts – society deems atrocities committed by white people as often not being atrocities at all, whereas minorities are often judged to the full extent of the law or worse. Arguing how this should be does little to reflect on the present reality of the situation – that racially motivated actions between the races are not the same due to the power imbalance between them.

This makes a lot of sense, in that the "acts are not the same" remarks are said from the perspective of society as a whole instead of personal opinions. I understand that aspect better now, thank you!

It wasn't the issue to you. The issue to you was your presumption that the poster believed that black people who murder white people for being white are in any context less guilty than white people who murder black people for being black.

I didn't elaborate on the example because while I believe that such incidents are unacceptable and incredibly fucked up, I couldn't relate its contents to the rest of that post or the point I wanted to make, hence why I didn't mention it. I then asked for clarification and I understand their point better now. I apologize if that wasn't clear to you before. If you still want to go on your self-righteous crusade of claiming to know the intentions and thoughts of other people, though, go right ahead.

Edit: 1:30am. I'm off to sleep, see y'all in the morning.

 

[HariKari]

But every white person interacts with a society that tells them they're superior. If you have watched tv, watched movies, stepped outside been to school;etc you will be influenced beyond your parents grasp. So you'll have white people who have "black friends" but somehow justify the murder of a 12 year old kid with a toy gun. Because all white peoole are racist. There's no fucking way any white person is going to come away from a lifetime of thinking they're the hottest shit in the world and not come to the conclusion that they're superior. Louis CK put it perfectly. That's not a judgement but a statement of fact. Now, can a white person and I be friends? Sure. If they recognize that they probably have weird ideas on race and are willing to undo a racist white society. Otherwise they can step the fuck off.

It's really strange to me that rhetoric like this is acceptable.

 

[Nepenthe]

Zimmerman getting away with murdering a kid off a racial stereotype is horrible, and an indication of systemic racism at work enabling him to do so. But a white kid being killed by a black person in retaliation to this isn't any more or less forgivable, regardless of whether he walks for it. (He wont. But still.) The unfortunate result of such a long-running and deep rooted racial issue is that, yes, some communities of black people have some really racist views against white people. That may be easier to empathize with, considering minorities have valid excuses for holding those views, but no, that doesn't mean we get to call it something different. Hatred is hatred. So yes, racially motivated crimes from black people and white people are indeed coming from completely different places. But I don't see what we could possibly gain by assuming one is worse than another, it's the same damn thing. We CAN use that knowledge to help bring light to the differences in the realities of being white vs. black in such a world....But such a broad stroke isn't going to do us any good in the long run IMO.


If you walk up to a random suburban white guy and tell him that he's definitely racist, and that he's the only one who can be truly be racist, he's either going to be confused at what you're talking about, insulted and get defensive, or acknowledge what he knows about his privileges. The chance of the last one happening is pretty fucking slim, and there is no shortage of communities (especially now during the BLM vs. ALM shit) who will coddle him and tell him that, "no, they're race baiting hypocrites, just ignore them".


So, that's a losing strategy. Just the way I see it, anyway.

I think we mostly agree in that we both recognize that there is the existence of a double standard in this country in the way society responds to the actions of white people versus black people. I think where we're disagreeing is that you believe recognizing the nuance, reasoning, and terms for why that is somehow gives black people a longer leash to commit heinous acts when that isn't the case at all either theoretically or in practice, just like differentiating between different degrees of murder doesn't mean someone isn't dead. You bring up BLM vs. ALM which I think is actually a more pertinent example to the discussion than you think. Everyone agrees that all lives have some inherent value, but the reality is the black lives mattering needs to be stated and reinforced because American society does not fully value them regardless of the former ideal. Just like there is a need for a movement that specifies that black lives matter, there is a need to have discussions and conversations about the etymology and inner workings of racism and how individuals must navigate these systems due to the way they look and their subsequent experiences without angrily defaulting to "No; all hatred is equal!" when people are having these discussions.

I apologize if that wasn't clear to you before. If you still want to go on your self-righteous crusade of claiming to know the intentions and thoughts of other people, though, go right ahead.

You don't have the high ground to talk about anyone else being self-righteous after your initial responses to dlauv.

 

[LegendofLex]

Anyone can be racist.

More probably, everyone is probably somewhat racist.

Not all racism is oppression, though (oppression is a very specific thing, and it's not an "ism"), and not all of it is motivated by white supremacy (again, a very specific kind of systemic racism and oppression), and so not all racism is equal.

The tendency to reserve racism for oppression and white supremacy is useful and important and I don't intend to discourage it. At the same time, etymologically speaking, racism can't be pigeonholed into only referring to those things. The components of the word "racism" only denote an ideology predicated on race.

I think most people tend to use a self-serving definition (it's black people that are really racist against white people!), or an overtly discriminatory one (it can't be racism if it's a view held against white people). And so I think it's really difficult to have a reasonable conversation about it. White people are definitely too quick to try to turn it around and make false equivalences between racism and oppression/white supremacy. But that's why I think it's really useful and important to articulate those ideas distinctly from racism, because those are the systemic issues that most folks don't even realize they're participating in.

 

[Charles Brandon]

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.

Racism has only been a word for about 100 years.

 

[Funyarinpa]

You don't have the high ground to talk about anyone else being self-righteous after your initial responses to dlauv.

I admit(ted) to having misunderstood dlauv's post, that I was wrong. What more do you want?

Also, lol @ "I can't be self-righteous since you were just being self-righteous yourself"

 

[sunshine12608]

Just because you disagree with that doesn't mean you don't ultimately have some other issue. I've seen it time and time again.

I'm going to use all. In a society that informs white superiority, "all" is apt. Does this affect only white people? Not by a damn sight. But unless you're willing to work on undoing this problem we have nothing to talk about. Does this make white people bad because they're all racist? Nah. But they're certainly racist.

The problem is that white people have equated being racist with the worst thing in the world. It doesn't make you a bad person. I'm sure there's lots of otherwise cool people who for reason make passing judgements about other races.

Donald Trump's rise gives truth to this statement. If it's not all, it's certainly most. And since its most, you might as well say all, because those people who are racist are informed by the very same society of the supposedly "not racist" whites.

This is the equivalent of thinking "all blacks are lazy." Nothing will ever be accomplished with your way of thinking. In fact I would say people who think like you really don't care for a world where the color of your skin doesn't matter, but I guess I'll take my Hispanic ass out of here due to not having a dog in this fight.
Because everyone hates the Mexicans

 

[Chmpocalypse]

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.

Completely factually untrue. Every white person is a recipient of privilege in a white supremacist society.

 

[LegendofLex]

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.

White privilege isn't the only form of privilege, and privilege doesn't benefit all people equally.

A few really good examples that illustrate why all white people benefit from white privilege:

- Will not be shot for being black
- Will not be disciplined more harshly in school for being black
- Will not be given a more severe sentence for being black
- Not likely to be declined a job opportunity for having a "black sounding" name

There are other reasons why a white boy living in poverty might be more likely to be shot, disciplined harshly in school, etc., but they aren't compounded by also being black.

 

[Charles Brandon]

Completely factually untrue. Every white person is a recipient of privilege in a white supremacist society.

It's not factually anything. It's an opinion, same as yours.

 

[Whom_Gods_Annoy]

I'd like to reiterate how the concept of being born racist off the backs of people generations before you means there is no way one can ever not be racist no matter how hard they try to fix society's problems. How the hell do you expect society to progress then beyond, "Oh no, all us white people now know we are born racist! Gosh darnit! Guess us and our offspring will always have to live with it!"

 

[Somnid]

Since this is a relatively fringe definition of "racist" prone to strong repudiation nobody would understand it on that level, so I'd argue that this would generally not be a good way to use it and would almost certainly create communication difficulties. Words are used to aid communication, therefore it is best to choose them based on consensus unless there is explicit prior understanding. This is a very domain-centric way to define it, and so perhaps it would have been better to use a different word or phrase to describe the phenomenon in such a way it's less easily confused and easier to represent, especially if you expect it to be disseminated. To me this is just bad pedagogy.

 

[User Name Here]

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.

I was always under the impression that that was closer to the original definition. So I was arguing in favor of that, because it seems more accurate for most situations to me.

I also thought you were arguing in favor of the previously mentioned definition (which I know about, but don't agree with). But I get it: You're saying the former is more useful politically, for the ultimate goal of abolishing racism. I know what you meant by the spade comment lol.

 

[Freshmaker]

The Irish and the Jewish people would like to have a word with you.

The Germans in the US fared well in WW1 from what I've imagined without doing any research.