Found an interesting blog about racism vs "reverse racism" in north America

[JaanaRuutu]

The first thing you really need to understand is that the definition of racism that you probably have (which is the colloquial definition: “racism is prejudice against someone based on their skin color or ethnicity”) is NOT the definition that’s commonly used in anti-racist circles.

The definition used in anti-racist circles is the accepted sociological definition (which is commonly used in academic research, and has been used for more than a decade now): “racism is prejudice plus power”. What this means, in easy language:

A. Anyone can hold “racial prejudice” — that is, they can carry positive or negative stereotypes of others based on racial characteristics. For example, a white person thinking all Asians are smart, or all black people are criminals; or a Chinese person thinking Japanese people are untrustworthy; or what-have-you. ANYONE, of any race, can have racial prejudices.


B. People of any race can commit acts of violence, mistreatment, ostracizing, etc., based on their racial prejudices. A black kid can beat up a white kid because he doesn’t like white kids. An Indian person can refuse to associate with Asians. Whatever, you get the idea.

C. However, to be racist (rather than simply prejudiced) requires havinginstitutional power. In North America, white people have the institutional power. In large part we head the corporations; we make up the largest proportion of lawmakers and judges; we have the money; we make the decisions. In short, we control the systems that matter. “White” is presented as normal, the default. Because we have institutional power, when we think differently about people based on their race or act on our racial prejudices, we are being racist. Only white people can be racist, because only white people have institutional power.


D. People of color can be prejudiced, but they cannot be racist, because they don’t have the institutional power. (However, some people refer to intra-PoC prejudice as “lateral racism”. You may also hear the term “colorism”, which refers to lighter-skinned PoC being prejudiced toward darker-skinned PoC.) However, that situation can be different in other countries; for example, a Japanese person in Japan can be racist against others, because the Japanese have the institutional power there. But in North America, Japanese peoplecan’t be racist because they don’t hold the institutional power.

E. If you’re in an area of your city/state/province that is predominantly populated by PoC and, as a white person, you get harassed because of your skin color, it’s still not racism, even though you’re in a PoC-dominated area. The fact is, even though they’re the majority population in that area, they still lack the institutional power. They don’t have their own special PoC-dominated police force for that area. They don’t have their own special PoC-dominated courts in that area. The state/province and national media are still not dominated by PoC. Even though they have a large population in that particular area, they still lack the institutional power overall.

F. So that’s the definition of racism that you’re likely to encounter. If you start talking about “reverse racism” you’re going to either get insulted or laughed at, because it isn’t possible under that definition; PoC don’t have the power in North America, so by definition, they can’t be racist. Crying “reverse racism!” is like waving a Clueless White Person Badge around.

Source.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Are you the one that has been calling 911 every time you saw a post by Sam Fisher that you didn't like? Or 288GTO's post?


And in the NFL and NBA since blacks have institutional power can they be racists when they make slurs against white players?

 

[Luu]

Don't like a word? Change, or add to, the definition.

I'm kind of old-fashioned that way. I like to use words according to established definitions. I find that it serves communication, which should be the point.
Now, I'm aware that language and words change over time. That's simply the nature of anything living and thriving. And as long as we're all aware of these changes, and agree to them, all is well.
A good example here is "discrimination". When it comes up nowadays, we usually agree that it reffers to negative discrimination. But the word really is neutral: It simply means 'to separate'. If you hire a person for a job, we all agree it's good to pick the best qualified applicant. Now, that really is discrimination based on qualification. We've just agreed not to use it that way.

Point is, the word "racism" tends to be all over the place nowadays. And I'm not sure the quoted text is helping.

 

[Jack Davenport]

It takes a while to learn people and their personalities on a message board. After reading more of her postings while I may disagree with her on many issues it is apparent Jaana is an intelligent and articulate contributor to this forum. I have made some smarmy drive by comments to her that were uncalled for.

I apologize.

 

[bobjustbob]

Smarmy drive by comments from You? I find that hard to believe.

 

[Philbert]

Naw, saying an academic definition is suddenly the litmus test of PC is as lame as saying New Orleans will be a Chocolate city once more.
If a police force in Atlanta is run by a black dominated city council, staffed by a majority of non-white officers, and the population is predominately black, suddenly the same race-bitterness described in the article, unchanged for decades, has overnight morphed from discrimination to racism.
Ahhh...but getting higher up on the perspective scale, since the Federal level of government is still not majority staffed by minority population everywhere racism is only coming from whites, and the same exact bad behavior by POS PoCs is only discrimination, which is still illegal as defined by law.
With so much legislated affirmative action, isn't the PoC packing institutional control without needing a numerical advantage?
With only approximately 20% of the US population black, where does all this special power to be free to exercise racism come from? Legislated institutional control.

This article is not the last word, or even the real deal; lala land Libs and racists on the Left need something to point to, to justify their self hate or blatant discrimination.

I will never give kneejerk Libs like Larss and Jaana the control of how I define reality and what I say.

 

[JaanaRuutu]

Ah. Share an article you find interesting and suddenly you're a knee-jerk liberal. Look at this fucking guy.

 

[Philbert]

Ah. Share an article you find interesting and suddenly you're a knee-jerk liberal. Look at this fucking guy.

Don't look, Jaana, you won't learn anything.

LISTEN.

Try to learn ...

 

[JaanaRuutu]

I don't listen to people who think they're smarter than me.

 

[Rattrap]

Source.

Interesting definition. I find it pragmatic.

Don't like a word? Change, or add to, the definition.

I'm kind of old-fashioned that way. I like to use words according to established definitions. I find that it serves communication, which should be the point.
[...]
Point is, the word "racism" tends to be all over the place nowadays. And I'm not sure the quoted text is helping.

I don't know; if we took the quoted text as the established definition, it would make discussion easier. I suppose the point of it is that, at least in the public forum today, it doesn't really have much of a concrete definition. I think the difference of power between prejudice and racism here is useful, whether or not that's what you'd find in a dictionary.

I don't listen to people who think they're smarter than me.

He's one of the three members I have on ignore. My forum experience is improved for it. He's better than the other two, but being the third worst is still pretty awful.

 

[Philbert]

Interesting definition. I find it pragmatic.


I don't know; if we took the quoted text as the established definition, it would make discussion easier. I suppose the point of it is that, at least in the public forum today, it doesn't really have much of a concrete definition. I think the difference of power between prejudice and racism here is useful, whether or not that's what you'd find in a dictionary.


He's one of the three members I have on ignore. My forum experience is improved for it. He's better than the other two, but being the third worst is still pretty awful.

I can see where you two could stick each other's head up the other's ass, and keep yourselves in blissfull ignorance. Perfect symbiosis!

He's one of the three members I have on ignore. My forum experience is improved for it.

Mine as well...

 

[Luu]

I don't know; if we took the quoted text as the established definition, it would make discussion easier. I suppose the point of it is that, at least in the public forum today, it doesn't really have much of a concrete definition. I think the difference of power between prejudice and racism here is useful, whether or not that's what you'd find in a dictionary.

If we took it as established definition, yes. But how many would do that? I'm not sure I agree with it. I just think it places too much importance on the power to implement racism.

An example: As a Norwegian, I don't know much about the Aryan Brotherhood. Would you say they have the power to implement their views? If not (and please, do say no ), does that remove them as racists? I know they belong to the Demographic of Power, but still, as a group?

I do agree that the word racism is largely used undefined today, especially online. People seem to read anything into it, and so I try to avoid it entirely.

 

[Philbert]

Re: Found an interesting blog about racism vs "reverse racism" in north America

I don't listen to people who think they're smarter than me.

That is SO obvious.

 

[Rattrap]

If we took it as established definition, yes. But how many would do that? I'm not sure I agree with it. I just think it places too much importance on the power to implement racism.

An example: As a Norwegian, I don't know much about the Aryan Brotherhood. Would you say they have the power to implement their views? If not (and please, do say no ), does that remove them as racists? I know they belong to the Demographic of Power, but still, as a group?

I do agree that the word racism is largely used undefined today, especially online. People seem to read anything into it, and so I try to avoid it entirely.

I take your point that perhaps this article's particular definition of racism might be too far removed to be used in the public forum - the Aryan Brotherhood being a good example. Just calling them prejudiced seems...not to do the description justice. I suppose one could make it more specific by saying 'institutionalized racism', emphasizing the difference in power - but this side-steps most of the point of the article.

I always appreciate the attempt to clearly define words often used ambiguously, at any rate. Even if this particular example isn't pinned down to complete satisfaction.

 

[Lee Van Queef]

Says her.

 

[Jagger69]

So this is the world according to someone named "marfmellow"? Weak and fatally-flawed argument IMO.

 

[Lee Van Queef]

So this is the world according to someone named "marfmellow"? Weak and fatally-flawed argument IMO.

Wonder when's her birfday?

 

[meesterperfect]

Racism is Racism.
The term reverse racism is bullshit........and racist in itself.

 

[vodkazvictim]

Reverse discrimination is nothing new, it's been around since at least the '70s.
Just look at the habbit of the old Soviet Union; all the premiers came from low prices. Nikita Kruschev was a Shephard boy, yet under his leadership the Soviet Union got missiles within striking distance of the West, then removed them when the threat of world war 3 breaking out was too great.

 

[Jagger69]

Racism is Racism.
The term reverse racism is bullshit........and racist in itself.

Agree 100% :thumbsup: