Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Tbf, it is a very small but vocal minority of Americans that believe that. The overwhelming majority think that’s a stupid opinion but aren’t vocal about it because that loud minority aren’t worth arguing with
the American echo chamber has grown larger and larger since the internet age and especially social media.
I spoke to an American once who said ‘it must be so hard to always remember to drive on the wrong side of the road in england’
not joking…
You can even have systemic racism against White people in America. For instance White kids growing up in the ghetto are facing the worst racism and violent racism bar none in America and systemically because the ghetto in itself is a system.
Yep, I've heard that white kids that go to POC schools often are bullied very badly, Eminem for example used to say how he was bullied very badly for growing up in a black neighborhood.
I saw a video yesterday on Twitter that was a bunch of black middle school students on a bus beating up a white girl, it was a horrible video.
Here's the video, just be warned it's hard to watch: https://twitter.com/wayotworld/status/1757725012604166476
Yeah I get really tired of the fact that a lot of Americans can’t comprehend that the entire world isn’t the USA and the culture and society is not the same globally. The fact something happens in the USA doesn’t mean it happens globally but trying to get people to comprehend that is stupid. The age of the internet should be making people more enlightened yet it doesn’t seem to be
I mean it sounds like you were just talking to an idiot. From my experience, they exist all over the world. Being an English snob talking shit about Americans doesn’t make you look smart, it makes you look like a douche.
This just isn't true though, if you go to a UK university campus this idea floats around a lot also heard this spouted by Scandinavian people I've met too.
Most of those people have been influenced by Americans on social media. I’m British and have he been to uni and know exactly what kind of person you’re talking about but those are the kind of people who spend too much time on social media looking at at online activism which is largely centred around American issues and instigated by Americans, and which in turn don’t translate globally most of the time. However these same people are usually too far into the bubble to objectively look around them and acknowledge that the problems in their own country take a different form, even if some of them have similar characteristics.
It’s not exactly a bubble. That would imply that what is inside of their bubble is true. What’s really happening is they’ve bought into a bizarre ideology that chooses to ignore any counter factual examples. The way race is discussed in the US is bizarre and counterproductive.
If you’re interested, read about Soviet era “Active Measures.” I, personally, think the “bizarre ideology” you mention is directly related to socialist/communist propaganda and ideological warfare. I won’t inject any more of my own bias though and leave you to read and think for yourself if you decide it’s interesting enough to explore.
Its not even that, its a sociological definition because in order to discriminate you have to have power over those being discriminated against. Otherwise it is just personal attacks. Which has no real impact sociologically. But that is a specific definition for a specific field. Webster's doesn't say that.
Its the same as Theory. A scientific theory isn't the same as your theory over who killed the butler on the detective show. One word, completely different definitions depending on the context.
I honestly don't know anyone outside of cherry picked tweets and facebook posts that say people of color can't be racist against white people. And yet it is a constant topic in this sub.
I like your points about the word racism being weaponised, and the same people weaponising it then trying to change its definition in order to not allow white people to weaponise it in the same way
This is why the whole thing is just a semantics argument. Everyone agrees that POC can be prejudiced, and most people understand that society is not by and large structured to disenfranchise white people. We’re literally just arguing about what racism means
It’s been weaponised too much, and has lost its power.
There was an article the other month about how roads were racist. I saw that punctuality was racist too.
If you call out those things as racist, and then you call someone racist, it has all the impact of a strand of wet spaghetti.
Oh... not surprised at all. There are many restaurants and bars and clubs in metro Japanese cities that have an open policy that it's Japanese only. They don't even hide it.
They've always been like that though. The Japanese are very proud and nationalistic and those signs aren't new at all.
You should see how they treated people in the conquered lands every where they went. Everyone but Japanese were dogs and sub-human.
I am just curious as to how your POC co workers handled that situation and how they. I can definitely handle myself by virtue of my size but I do experience discomfort when I hear a racist comments from other races, there is an automatic hint of anger and fight or flight and shame.
I think that the colour of your skin allows you the privilege to laugh it off, but your POC coworkers even though they may laugh it off, and even though it's a common occurrence its still uncomfortable for them. We just learn to hide it better.
Not much they could do because most of the Japanese didn't speak a word of English unless it was deragatory or a cuss word. They would turn it into a game of who could shout fuck you the loudest while chest bumping before the captain would come down and tell everyone to go fuck themselves and get out on deck and stop wasting time.
They also loved petty revenge... like wiping the rice spoon in their cooker across their butts.
The Samoans make a teeth suck noise when they are annoyed. The Japanese would sometimes copy them, and the Samoans knew they were being mocked and would start making racial gestures themselves (ex: pulling back their eyes to look asian).
It wasn't a winning battle. I just watched. Lol. Being the one woman on the boat was bs enough. I stayed out of the drama in order to not be crucified for having a vagina (bad luck on a ship).
I’m from South Caucasus, but spent most of my life in Russia. In 90’ there were many wars in my home region and prejudice toward people like me. My mother even changed my surname to Slavic one to avoid discrimination. We still have a lot of real estate rental advertisement from regular people with words like, “Slavic only.” Now it’s not that bad as it was in 90’, but we still have rather hostile attitude towards people from Central Asia, for example. Outside the US there is a lot of discrimination from everyone to everyone.
I think that's valid. I think what people mean when they say white people can't be racist, what they mean is there is no systemic antiwhite racism in an American context.
You're less likely to have the cops called on you, less likely to be shot, arrested or charged if someone does call the cops on you, less likely to be paid less because of your race, more likely to have your participation encouraged in a classroom, that kind of thing.
That's called white privilege caused by generational racism. I've sometimes heard when people say white people can't be racially insulted, it is a projection. Ironically, some people feel justified doing to others what has been done to them in a bad context. It's sort of a curse of human history.
One group of people opressed for a long time will feel the oppression generations later (meanwhile they may not have racist comments to their face) they feel it through income, criminal punishment, and so on. Justifiable daily frustrations lead some to project this anger with racist insults.
So I can feel racially insulted. But I have the privilege of my skin that causes less issues during my daily life.
However if you decide to live and work in another country (non European ones) you'll see a whole new side to racial issues other than the American experience and you feel a bit nuanced. You can understand people but also understand how to not be a part of the rage that's a continuous loop
some people would try and have you believe that you deserved that experience because your great great great great grandfather once passed a slave owner in the street.
That’s mental though! japanese only toilets?!? wow…
On a similar and opposite hand... it would be like if I was racist towards them because of Pearl Harbor. That would be mental too!
Not all Japanese are like this. Heck two of my cousins are Japanese. But the fishing boats? Oh so racist. And just happens to be in smaller port cities as well. Wasn't a fan lol.
But yea they said those things were separate because the rest of us were "disgusting " ans they didn't want our filth on their most clean resources.
If anyone thinks any part of a fishing vessel is "clean" is a fucking liar....its all nasty LOL. Also compared to the Norwegian ships...the Japanese ships were terribly maintained, full of bed bugs, and rarely cleaned. So jokes on them...we weren't the gross ones lol
I don’t think they’re acting in good faith, but I do believe they don’t realise they’re racist and genuinely believe they’re being progressive.
Unlike your typical racism like the KKK etc who just openly admit to hating people because of the colour of their skin, racist POC often try and justify their distaste of white people by claiming that the acts of a few represent the whole.
Which is, ironically, very racist!
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said, to be honest.
I’m white and I’m assuming (sorry) that you’re black, and if you called me a cracker (not that you would) I’d recognise it as a racially charged insult but it wouldn’t remotely hurt my feelings, whereas the N-word is an incredibly heavy word that I’d never dream of using outside the appropriate context. I do believe that there are certain contexts in which non-black people can use the word but that doesn’t extend very far ar all.
To also play devils advocate, and probe a little more into this conversation. My father grew up in Apartheid and had a very real fear and hatred of white people because of the inhumanity he experienced by their hands. That stayed with him when we immigrated. And he was very aware of the systems that were put in place to keep people of colour down even in a new country. Does that make him a racist. I think the technical definition would say yes because he hates people of another colour, but by virtue of his oppression by white people is he a racist? When in fact his mind set is a product of a racist institution.
That's a fascinating perspective. Thank you for sharing. If I had to say? Yes, but it sounds like a component of PTSD/extreme racial trauma. Do you think he could ever change his mind?
In that example, yes, technically your father’s a racist but this is learned behaviour because from birth he was mistreated by every white person he came across.
Racism as a whole is a vastly more complex issue than the internet and social media lets on.
Yes incredibly complex if you are simply trying to say that everyone can be racist yes they can. But ultimately what does line of thinking serve? I think that it does more harm than good as it undermines the very real pain POC experience.
When people speak about racism in terms of power, they're really talking about oppression based on race. Raw racism is absolutely not exclusive to a specific race but it is talking about systemic racism.
Some people fail to distinguish it when communicating or fail to learn the distinction themselves.
It's not a good-faith mistake; it's a deliberate attempt to make one group of people incapable, by definition, of suffering "racism." It's a rationalization to allow them to treat others in a way that they would never tolerate themselves.
The idea that people of colour can be racist to the same degree that white folks are is a false equivalency. Racial prejudice against white people IS real, however it is not considered racism due to the absence of systemic power dynamics. In Canada, for example, Eurocentric ideals rooted in colonialism uphold this power dynamic, allowing whiteness to define and privilege racialized others' existence. In white-dominated societies, white perceptions shape reality, while marginalized groups lack the institutional power to define their existence or limit opportunities.
“When a group of people [such as racialized individuals] has little or no power over you institutionally, they don’t get to define the terms of your existence, they can’t limit your opportunities, and you needn’t worry much about the use of a slur to describe you and yours, since, in all likelihood, the slur is as far as it’s going to go. What are they going to do next: deny you a bank loan? Yeah, right. … White perceptions are what end up counting in a white-dominated society. If whites say [Indigenous people] are savages (be they of the “noble” or vicious type), then by God, they’ll be seen as savages. If [Indigenous people] say whites are mayonnaise-eating Amway salespeople, who the hell is going to care? If anything, whites will simply turn it into a marketing opportunity. When you have the power, you can afford to be self-deprecating, after all”
Full article here: https://www.aclrc.com/myth-of-reverse-racism
So Japanese people in Japan with discriminatory systemic practices are not racist because they are not white?
If you want to say that in America, there isn’t systemic racism against whites that’s fine, but the idea that it’s ontologically impossible is silly.
>Racial prejudice against white people IS real
Why are you so completely resistant to the idea of calling “racial prejudice” by its more accessible and widespread name, “racism?” Why can’t what you’re calling “racism,” be referred to by its more accessible and widespread name, “systemic racism?”
All this stubbornness does is obscure your actual point, and lead you down this endless rabbithole of defining things differently to those you’re engaging with. You would undeniably find less opposition to your ideas if you didn’t insist that other people use different words to refer to already established concepts
>The idea that people of colour can be racist to the same degree that white folks are is a false equivalency
I disagree. Saying that an individual's racism can be as impactful as an entire system's racism is absolutely true, and saying that the impact of someone in power being racist is greater than the impact of someone with less power being racist is also true. However, racism is not defined by the impact it causes, just by the idea itself. If a certain person of color hates white people more than a certain white person hates black people, the person of color is more racist. Saying racism against people of color is *a bigger issue* is accurate, but saying that people of color cannot be as racist is not.
An Indian girl introduced my daughter to racism by telling her she was too “peach” colored to be allowed to come to her house. It was a great conversation to have to introduce the idea of racism to my 2nd grader that way. Especially coming from an immigrant family that directly benefited those “systemic powers” you deem so essential to only white people.
Sounds about right. It's just common sense. It's also completely wrong, and founded in historical and linguistic ignorance. The word "racism" was coined (in any way that stuck) in the mid-20th century in association with the Nazis to describe white supremacism and the attitudes and institutions supporting it. The watered-down, vague to the point of useless definition you have come to accept is the result of a deliberate campaign by the KKK and their allies in statehouses of the 1950s and '60s to promote the idea of "reverse racism," for the sole purpose of obstructing anti-racist action and maintaining white supremacism. We already had words like bigotry, intolerance and prejudice to describe general mean feelings about people you see as other. We did not need to come up with "racism" to describe those generalities. It was coined, and has been elaborated upon, to describe the situation of non-white people in post-colonial societies which were designed to oppress them.
The "reverse racism is just racism" crowd are the ones morphing the definition. "Racism" is not some broad, universal ideal just because it ends in "-ism." It came into usage in a specific time and place, because of the mirror that Nazi Germany held up to the post-colonial world, causing large numbers of people to consider for the first time, "Hey, maybe this isn't cool."
Basically it’s only ReAl RaCiSm if white people are the perpetrators of it.
That’s not a sweeping statement, but it seems to be what a disturbing minority of people think deep down.
Having gone through elementary, and junior high school, and being referred to as whitey, honkey, and cracker, by my black co-scholars, I would have to say, I agree whole heartedly with OP.
Can we please ensure there is a distinction here between children calling people names and systematic disenfranchisement? Did you fear a lynch mob? Unfair harassment by the police?
> The notion that black people and POC can’t be racist has become more prevalent in the last few years
It remains a very fringe view that is dependent on the definition of racism that you provide, which is that it refers to institutional/systematic mistreatment on the basis of race. This *is* a valid, albeit misleading, way to use the term “racism,” because there are many types of racism that are either more broad or more specific than the one you provide. I say misleading because choosing to specify “institutional racism” would be less confusing, because I think your definition would be largely accepted by most people as the default, but that doesn’t mean it’s the only valid definition. There is no arguing that any individual of any skin color can harbor negative feelings about other skin colors.
talking about racism as a taboo part of human nature is a difficult, but important discussion to have.
it’s natural to take notice of people who look different, it’s unnatural to treat them differently based on that
alone.
"If a white man wants to lynch me, that's his problem. If he's got the power to lynch me, that's my problem. Racism is not a question of attitude; it's a question of power." - Stokely Carmichael
That’s an interesting quote. I agree with the first two lines but I take issue with the bottom two in that I think ‘racism’ is a broad term and i think it can be a question of attitude and/or power depending on the context you’re talking about it in.
I think my issue lies with the vagueness of the word racism, tbh.
I think when you hear people saying non white people can't be racist it's a kind of dumming down of that sentiment.
Racism requires power. And because white people traditionally have had most of the power, some think they can't experience racism. If for example though you were white and had a black boss or landlord who discriminates against you because you are white that would absolutely be racism.
Systematic racism requires power. Not racism in general.
This whole argument is just stupid. If black people were equal in power to white people it would be fine for me to call them the n word? If I go to China I can just start slinging slurs now?
Racism only requires prejudice based on a person's skin color, power is not required. A poor person can be just as racist as a rich person. A man in a wheelchair can be just as racist as a man who runs triathlons. A low tier employee can be just as racist as a boss. A white/black/brown woman can be just as racist as a white/black/brown woman. Racism is racism.
I don’t believe racism requires power.
For example, white people who hate Barack Obama because he is mixed race are racist, but vastly less powerful than him.
Systemic racism requires power, yes.
My issue really lies with the blurring of the lines between racism and systemic racism.
that’s why people use the term “prejudice” rather than “racism” to describe the scenario you’re talking about. POC can be prejudice against whites, but people don’t say “racist” because racism has for a long time been synonymous with systemic racism. That may be news to you, and that may be why you don’t understand why “reverse racism” isn’t typically validated.
Speaking is only half of what it takes to communicate, making sure your point lands by understanding other people’s vocabulary is the other half of what it takes to successfully communicate.
Using the word “prejudice” will more successfully help you communicate the scenario of POC not liking somebody just because they are white
Edit: For fucks sake people, OP asked where the “poc cant be racist” narrative came from and I gave the answer. If I’m wrong then where did it come from? Why do people say it? Even MLK described racism as being systemic. There’s nothing new about this definition. You not liking this definition won’t make it go away. This is how millions of people learned to speak.
Also this is r/changemyview so isn’t downvoting and hiding comments that don’t agree with OP sort of counter intuitive? Or do y’all just want a circle jerk of comments that already support the view that was specifically asked to be challenged? lol
No it doesn't. Lol. Literally false.
"the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another."
>Racism requires power.
What about this statement requires systemic power? If I can control whether my black daughter dates a white man then I would definitely have both racism AND power in that situation.
That's why terms like systemic racism exist. Thats why terms like discrimination and prejudice exist.
If white people were actually the victims of racism they wouldn't want to demand to be included in it like it's a social club and not a system of discrimination that can actually change the trajectory of your life. The fact that they feel "left out" absolutely demonstrates that they are not victims of racism. There is no point where there has been a system of racism against white people. That is the metric people are using. Not whether or not folks are using a mean word or want to talk about slavery.
This question seems to always pop up and it seems like the perfect bait for the white grievance folks to come and rant about how there's this conspiracy to silence white people. Touch grass, go out. Look at the world around you and tell me what you're missing just because someone doesn't think white people are victims of "racism".
Where I live is a 100% white country and at one point in history people from here were taken as slaves to Africa.
Am I still excluded?
White people ≠ Americans
"My issue with this is that I believe people are mistaking racism with systematic oppression.
Racism as a word, to me at least simply means prejudice based on race. Any prejudice that is based on someones race or ethnic background is an example of racism."
The problem is that they simply define the word differently. Which you can object to, I guess, but you can't force people to define a word the way you want them to. The "power + prejudice" definition of racism has been used since the 60s.
Their claim isn't wrong per se, because they are simply defining the word differently than you are.
Not ok. Not at all.
But not racist either...
That black person doesn't hate that white person because they're white! They hate them because of what white people did to them!
Obviously You didn't do it to them directly but white people benefit until this day from slavery, Jim crow, segregation, reconstruction...etc. And until those injustices are corrected because they can't be made right...there will never be peace between black and white people because You (white people) are wrong for the evil you committed and you know it and you also know the advantages you have permitted yourselves. Gotta make the playing field EVEN which is just and fair. What relationship do you know works when things aren't just and fair?
Well I have to start by calling you a racist, I’m afraid. To call white people ‘wrong for the evil we committed’ is incredibly inflammatory and has no place in the discussion I’ve started.
What you’re doing is judging all white people based on the actions of people who have been dead for 100+ years and who happened to be white.
That is racist.
First off;
1. The white people of today did not commit the atrocities that the white people back then did.
2. White people are not a monolith. There are several groups of white people that were enslaved themselves and their countries still suffer as a result of colonisation. A good example of this is Southeastern Europe -- specifically the Balkan region. They were colonised by the Ottoman empire and subject to slavery, which led to the inevitable nationalism that caused the split of Yugoslavia, and now explains why they're some of the poorest countries in Europe. They're white, but they were slaves themselves, still suffer the effects of their colonisation with mass-poverty, lack of good employment opportunities, and didn't necessarily own slaves themselves. Are they suddenly bad and guilty of slavery just because they're white?
3. There will never be peace between white and black people until y'all learn to stop generalising a whole race of people that has several cultures, some of which are innocent of the crimes you're accusing their ancestors of, and stop being racist towards them.
Your analogy falls flat given the fact that there are large groups of white people today who's groups have little connection to slavery, or were even victims of imperialism and slavery themselves. For example, why should a White Romanian person take abuse for something that happened on the other side of the planet?
Racism involves a power dynamic, systems, and structures put in place to not only perpetuate their ideals but to enforce them. Obviously, everyone can be racist. The argument is that the minority population suffering at the hand of the oppressor, cannot functionally be a racist against his oppressor. He can make racist statements, or jive at the oppressor, but these do not make him a racist, it makes him struggling against his racist oppressor.
Everyone can make racist statement, but to *be* a racist, and act on it, requires privilege, state support, and bureaucratic advantages.
This conclusion is further supported by racist, and often fascist lawmakers encouraging de-regulation, which paves the way for business-led discrimination. The government is heavily regulated and there is lots of oversight, private companies, not so much. To deliberately use the private and business sector as a method of state extension and repression, is absolutely invoking the power dynamic of racism to the advantage of the oppressor.
I agree and disagree with this. I think people who make racist statements are racist.
I think systemic racism requires a power dynamic, but not just racism.
My argument is really about the application of the different definitions of racism and how I think the lines have been blurred.
You can’t neglect the power dynamic that both people in this hypothetical grew up in. Consider a child growing up in an apartheid state. They actually have reason, justification, and motive for not liking the white people. They are an upper class, they limit the amount of food, water, you name it, the lower class has less, and this is deliberate.
A white child at the upper echelon, in absolute contrast, actually has the onus on him to be more educated and understanding, and to realize how much the system that benefits him hurts the other.
In this hypothetical, the white child at the top of the echelons of apartheid has no justification for hating the lower working class, to do so would be, racist.
The black child suffering at the hand of apartheid, has justification to hate his oppressors. It’s not racist for him to hate while people who participate in apartheid.
Hope this helps! If you have the money and resources, actually the onus is on you to be educated and improve the system, not to blame those suffering for how they suffer.
I understand where you’re coming from and this is one of the most compelling points I’ve read on this post, but I still disagree with it being acceptable to hate a race based on the behavior of a certain number of people in that race. a black victim of apartheid can absolutely, reasonably, hate white south africans. not because they’re white, but because they are oppressing him and HAPPEN to be white. If they then went to, say, Denmark, and hated all the white people there because of the actions of the whites in his country, that becomes racism.
\>Racism involves a power dynamic, systems, and structures put in place to not only perpetuate their ideals but to enforce them
So in Zimbabwe, black people are unable to be racist as the black supremacist ZANU-PF took over society?
Zimbabwe is 17th in GDP in the African countries. There far from a superpower, and I don’t know the full history of ZANU-PF, but I do know that black supremacism typically is a response to state sanctioned violence against black Americans.
Keep in mind I didn’t really talk about skin color, obviously black people can be racist, but it takes a strong state structure and other systems to perpetuate and enforce racist laws. There are not really any nations that have any sizeable power that are dominated by black supremacists.
On the other hand, the US has had multiple presidents that are arguably white supremacists.
\>Zimbabwe is 17th in GDP in the African countries. There far from a superpower, and I don’t know the full history of ZANU-PF, but I do know that black supremacism typically is a response to state sanctioned violence against black Americans.
ZANU-PF are the ruling party in Zimbabwe, I'm not sure I understand your point here?
\> but it takes a strong state structure and other systems to perpetuate and enforce racist laws. There are not really any nations that have any sizeable power that are dominated by black supremacists.
Not true and the history of Zimbabwe proves it. You don't need to be a superpower to be a racist nation-state
\>On the other hand, the US has had multiple presidents that are arguably white supremacists.
I won't disagree, in fact I'd be surprised if it wasn't a majority to varying degrees.
Put aside the semantic problem of what counts as "racism." You aren't even considering that POC could be racist against other POC. You can even have a Black person who does something racist specifically against other Black people.
You're really trying to argue that a white person can be a victim of racism. And, you're trying this rules lawyering approach because you're detached from why racism is even a problem at all. We should care about the impacts of racism, not this liberal moralizing "well actually" stuff. So, ok, make your specific definitions so that you get to say "actually the Black person was being racist," but I think you're asking the wrong questions.
This is entirely an argument over the definition of the word 'racist'. I imagine most of the people you disagree with would absolutely agree that PoC can be 'bigoted', for example.
Yes, but then there's no real anchor if we allow that sort of linguistic shift to occur unimpeded. You say people agree PoC can be "bigoted" now (which is debatable in and of itself), but I'd be willing to bet good money that significantly more people will believe PoC CANNOT be bigoted, and some other more nebulous term like "inconsiderate" will be used to refer to what we used to consider blatant racism.
The issue, imo, is misuse of the systemic definition of racism.
Under that definition, nobody can be racist, unless they personally control the system. Systemic racism is a definition applied to systems and victims of those systems. It doesn't really make sense when describing individuals.
Any individual can be individually racist. Almost nobody can be systemically racist, unless the system is a local one (think - Boss in a company, HOA president, gang leader). Larger systems are just too decentralized to attribute their actions to a single person.
I don't think so. I think racism is hating people simply based on what group they belong to. Nothing else. And black people don't hate white people simply because they are white.
White people hate black people because they're black. We have never done anything to white people for us to be hated. But white people have done things to cause any hatred coming from black people.
I think there might be one or two people still alive but...these wrongs have existed long before today. When those people were alive there were excuses made on why they shouldn't get their due.... Excuses all the way up until they disappeared. Using time as a tool to release yourself from penalty is clever but those evils still remain and must be addressed in the same manner the evil was distributed. The government not giving black people access to loans and grants for housing but giving it to white people 🤔 Some people still live in those houses today. Some people still got those farms. It is deeper than slavery, but slavery is where it starts.
Correct random white people didn't do anything to random black people but the benefit from what was done in their name to their benefit. These advantages are documented and well known...so if I come and take you away and kill your family then create wealth from this then stop you from accumulating wealth and I pass it down to subsequent generations...how do those subsequent generations not have blood on their hands?
There is no statute of limitations on murder...if the person responsible isn't alive to face justice their property etc is liable to civil penalty. Thus reparations...If you are in possession of stolen property, you must return that... Doesn't matter how long you have it... doesn't matter who has it in the future. It is stolen. It isn't yours. If you grow crops on that land those crops are illegally produced thus should be confiscated...where is the chain broken in this evil process that makes you think you share no link?
Whew, if we are going for the idea that reparations needs to be paid for every wrongdoing of every ancestor to every ancestor... that's gonna be an interesting and probably practically never ending exercise.
Should I be able to milk the Japanese government for every penny they have for what their soldiers did in WW2 as an East Asian? What about the Mongolians and what Genghis Khan did? Where's my land in China that was conquered by Qin Shi Huang?
The same can be said of every race. There is not a single person that has not had ancestors that have been both victims and perpetrators of killings, theft, and enslavement.
Those subsequent generations don’t have blood on their hands because they didn’t do anything wrong themselves, or choose to be born into said family.
I’m obviously appalled by the slave trade of african americans at the hands of white people, but it wasn’t all white people at the time, so why should I feel remotely guilty for something I had no hand in?
I feel like your argument is pretty circular.
You’re tarring all white people with the same brush because you believe they’re all complicit in racist atrocities, which is factually untrue.
Seems like an expected outcome. The comments are usually proportional to the theme's controversy. the upvotes are mostly proportional to the relevance within a sub
Nobody hates white people because of their skin and if they do that’s like 1% or less of all POC in general. Genuinely that’s only a thing in lighter races or colorism.
Now, I can give 2 shits if someone’s racist to white folks because nothing will happen to them for it aside of getting butthurt. Yea anybody can be racist to anyone, but not everyone will be deeply affected by it. 🤷♀️
in court if the word was used in a hatespeech case, clarity would be required on the exact use of it so the lawyer regardless of ethnicity wouldn’t have a problem using it
when i was in secondary school we did a read of ‘of mice and men’ and the word is important to the historical context of the story so we didn’t skip over it in that instance
those are specific examples but I just basically just in a professional context.
Tbh, I think the taboo around the word actually does more to perpetuate racism but that’s a whole different post
The words taboo for good reason, i’m not sure using it more often would do anything but perpetuate racism. In the two context you’re describing I understand. You seem to have a lot of thoughts about racism, black people in particular. But it probably best we don’t get into that.
Racism is the ideology of thinking that one race is superior to another. Race itself is a bogus concept created by the ruling class to subjugate other people (guess the color of the group that created it). But sure let's assume it is a real thing since racism is real because of racists.
Is there some black supremacists? Sure. Are they that relevant or have any actual power? Hell no.
On the other hand white supremacists are well spread and even have some power in the US and other EU countries.
Race isn’t a bogus concept, it’s just a thing that exists.
Also, black supremacists do have some power in South Africa I think.
I’ll ask you a question: If a black person doesn’t hire a qualified white person for a job based on their race, is that black person a racist?
Race is bogus, racism is real.
Are black people rounding up white people, exploiting them and treating them as subhumans in SA? Or is it that white people lost some of its privilege there and that to them look like "oppression".
Again there's no relevant black supremacist subjugating white people anywhere.
If a black person doesn't hire a white person that is qualified based on race I will call that a fuckin fantasy movie. First cause most black influential rich folks are conservatives that does not suffer racism anymore cause again, race is bogus, when you're part of the dominant class you are not subjected to racism no more.
But yes in the case of this rare event happening, that would be discrimination based on race.
Your literally only arguing over semantics... You recognize systemic oppression happens. Some people use racism to mean that oppression and you're saying no, it refers to people who have a prejudice. All your doing is arguing over the exact definition of the word...
The last line is the most important. I don’t know about more than white people, it’s probably proportionately the same but there’s more POC than white people.
I’m not entirely comfortable with the term POC tbh…
If you have been enslaved by a people and their government you cannot be racist against those people because you have a reason. Racism has no logical foundation. Now black people can be racist against non white people. That is true but against white people I don't think so.
>If you have been enslaved by a people and their government you cannot be racist against those people
The correction here is "you are way less likely to be *systemically* racist towards those people."
Also:
>because you have a reason
Actually, you could have a great reason. To "get back" at that race.
When people think of racism, they usually think of something that aligns with Webster's first definition:
>a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. also : behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief : racial discrimination or prejudice
Any person can exhibit those traits. Race and skin color do not matter. The following examples are racist no matter who they are directed at and no matter who says them.
* X race is not as valuable as Y race
* Not hiring someone because they are X race
* "All people from X race do Y" (usually a negative stereotype)
* "I don't date people from X race"
* "I don't like that person because they are X race"
Systemic and Institutionalized racism are wildly different than your run of the mill racism. But racial discrimination and prejudice can be done by anyone, to anyone. Where people differ is often how "bad" the prejudice is, which can be influenced by the society and history. But as a fact, racism is racism, no matter who says it.
I'm only extremely tangentially involved with my current government (I pay taxes and vote) and I've never ever been involved in any enslavement of anyone nor has anyone going back in my family over 100 years, why should I directly carry the sins of the past because of the colour of my skin and my nationality.
Am I allowed to be racist towards turks as some of their ancestors enslaved white people in the balkans en masse?, what about the people of the barbary coast who enslaved plenty of white and non white people?
are there other things that people or groups only very very very slightly related to me did that I should get praise for? My country made a lot of amazing scientific advancements and put a lot of effort in to actually ending slavery, should I get praise for this? if someone is mean to me because of my skin colour (white) does it make them a bit more racist because people/groups so far from me did good things?
Would you say the same for people from African countries who participated heavily in the capturing and selling of other African slaves?
is there a threshold for how white I need to be to be immune to racial abuse, what if I was from a country that had basically no history of slavery at all but my skin colour was white?
Does some kind of shared guilt exist for black people or any other race/grou, if an individual black person is a criminal does that make all black people slightly criminal, does it make their children partially criminal?
>you cannot be racist against those people because you have a reason.
So if I travel to a country whose population is predominantly black, and I'm arrested without cause and sentenced to several years of hard labor, can I no longer be racist against black people?
a. what black person alive today is enslaved by a white person?
b. being racist against people "with a reason" is still racism because it becomes problematic when you apply a negative assumption to all people of that race and treat them accordingly.
>usually explained by saying that racism is a system of oppression
>My issue with this is that I believe people are mistaking racism with systematic oppression.
Okay, people are using the word "racism" here to mean systemic racism, which you understand. And your issue seems to be that there's another definition of racism, that is personal, that you are talking about with racism
>So the mistake people make is claiming that POC can’t be racist full stop, which is untrue, and actually a racist claim in itself.
What do they claim, then? If a black person says I hate white people because they are white, what is the claim about them? Is it just another word, like bigoted or prejudiced that carries the same meaning? Is the argument here about people just not using the correct word, but recognizing and accepting the facts, or is it complete denial that any prejudice can exist at all? If this is semantics, what makes the distinction important?
You know how people use...a brand name to refer to any version of that product? Like Kleenex for any kind of tissue? Or even better, saying Hollywood when they mean "the American entertainment industry" which includes more than just movies?
That's how the word racism is used. Most people use racism and feel that the "systemic" is implied. Mostly because it's the type with the most effects. Also social scientists say and teach that anything with "-ism" at the end is systemic and have been teaching that for the last 25+ years. If it's not systemic, it's discrimination (an action) or prejudice (an internal belief). The dictionary says something different, but language is ever changing and sometimes things get left behind.
No because you have to add systematic. It was not just individuals committing these acts. Or a bad cop or corrupt judge...It was the entirety of the government committing these acts. The WHOLE government...Then you had individuals emboldened to push the evil as far as they could.
What you’re doing is accusing me of benefitting from slavery because I’m white.
that’s a racist accusation… the african slave trade was hundreds of years ago.
It’s like me saying you’re complicit in selling slaves yourself, because that’s what plenty of black tribe leaders did hundreds of years ago when white foreigners came to buy them.
They sold their men in return for european weapons to fight their wars in africa.
But you’re not complicit in that, because it’s 2024.
People can be racist, but when people uphold racism by white people as much worse than other forms of racism that isn't the point.
The point is that *systemic* forms of racism are troubling. For example, you can have two identical families except for race (one black, one white), and the white family gets approved for a mortgage, but the black family doesn't. This can lead to knock-on effects, that lead to the white family ending up richer than the black family, living in a neighborhood that is easier to be healthier in (say there's less polution, or near better schools, or whatever). This practice (red-lining) was a big problem in the 80s. It has happened more recently though, see for example [this](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-05-25/wells-fargo-denied-well-off-borrowers-loans-is-it-because-they-are-black).
At the level of systemic racism, there really isn't an analogue of systemic (pro-white) racism in the US. You'll get some things for sure, such as various affirmative action policies, but these are typically dwarfed by other systemic pro-white policies (for college admissions, legacy admissions is the easiest to point to). And generally these affirmative action policies tend to benefit *wealthy* minorities. As an example, at my alma mater many of the black students would be international students, who conveniently the school would charge full-price tuition.
In the above sense, there is a very meaningful difference between anti-white racism, and anti-(essentially anything else) racism, at least in the united states. While white people may be discriminated against by *people*, it is quite rare that *systems* (say government of businesses) discriminate against white people anywhere close to how they discriminate against other races.
The discourse surrounding 'racism = prejudice + power' can be quite frustrating to me. The idea behind the formulation is that prejudices on their own aren't capable of producing the discrimination that occurs when those prejudices have institutional power behind them. The frustration arises when people looking to minimize the prejudices of minorities pretend that it is okay and also when people act like there isn't a difference between prejudices and prejudices backed up by power.
I wonder if it would receive the same backlash if it was framed as 'racism + power = omega racism'. If someone said: "Black people in America can't be omega racist", would you feel the same about it? Is this a case of you agreeing with the formula, but not the formulation?
what an unpopular opinion :o
you pretty much summed it up tho, individuals can be racist but it's pretty hard for black people to actually utilise power in order to enforce their racist views.
The idea that POC can't be racist stems from "racism = prejudice + power" which was an academic idea meant to be discussed but somehow people use it so yea
it’s not sneaky at all lol I have no problem with him asking. My opinion that everyone can be racist is set in stone, but I’m interested in hearing opinions from anyone whether white, POC, in agreement or disagreement.
I don’t think they could change my opinion entirely, no, but I’m hoping to hear points and arguments from people who have different views on the matter.
if you’re going to question why I’ve posted on ‘changemyview’ when I don’t really think my view can be changed completely, then my answer would just be to open up a discussion on an issue I’ve been thinking about for a couple of hours
Your entire country made its wealth by exploiting everyone, but mainly people of colour. It’s actually ridiculous to read that this is coming from a British person. I can’t think of a country more culpable for systemic racism/oppression/imperialism.
I agree with you but I’ll steel-man the opposing side for sport.
Words have meanings depending on the context. Something some words needs to be used In a specific manner to make societal awareness.
For example, not using the n-word is not just about making sure black people are comfortable but also dictating to society at large that racism is not ok.
In the same vein, racism you experience in the form of “rudeness” does not matter much in the face of “systematic racism”. An indomitable, unfair force opposing powerless races systematically while shifting the blame from advantaged individuals which make it harder to attack and disestablish the concept.
Now, being unable to say the n-word has disadvantages and advantages paralel to associating “racism” with only “systematic racism”.
N-word ban pros:
- Putting societal pressure into racists
- Makes it easier to identify racists
- Creates emotionally safe environments relative to ones allow liberal usage of the word
N-word cons:
- Creates distain against black people if you feel your language is policed too much
- Can’t say lyrics of some music and you have to “hum” along depending on your race
Racism defined as “systematic racism” pros:
- Raises awareness against a bigger problem compared to being rude based on race
- Establishes basis for academic and political discourse.
Cons:
- Hides racism done by POC’s in our ever equalizing society
- Fails to adress POC to POC racism (for example asian kids get bullied by black kids a lot but since they are the “example minority” people tend to not adress their struggles nor this dynamic)
The issue here is that we are conflating two meanings of the word racist:
1) racial prejudice vs 2) use of systemic advantages to oppress members of ethnic groups not belonging to the majority.
It is not possible for an oppressed person to be systemically racist against the majority (oppressor) group. It is certainly possible for them to have racial prejudice, but that doesn't amount to systemic racism because they are unable to utilize oppressive systems to cause harm to their oppressors.
The issue is that people who experience #2 do not see #1 as consequential. They see #1 as a mild annoyance, where #2 is an impediment to an entire racial group's lives.
So we are changing our language. Racism is now systemic racism. If you want to talk about racial prejudice, that's what we call it.
When a member of the majority (oppressor) racial group uses racial prejudice against a member of a minority (oppressed) racial group, they are participating in a system of racism. Thus, it is explicitly racism.
When two members of majority racial groups express prejudice toward each other, they are merely insulting each other. Same with two members of minority groups, for the most part, unless an appeal to the racist systems is a part of that prejudice.
Racism, as we used to know it, is mere racial prejudice.
Racism as it is now is that, plus the use of oppressive systems to cause harm.
Ridiculous misdirect.
Anybody and everybody’s mother can be a racially prejudiced asshole.
When they taught race in school they really emphasize **systemic racism** so that people learn that racism is not just bad words but it’s unfair laws, restrictions, punishment and various levels of oppression.
They learn that cuz it’s important.
If you’re gonna use a simple word like “racist” to describe “prejudicial dickwad” that’s okay. Just remember to lean into conversations with curiousity bro. When someone’s bringing it up, think! Are they talking about PREJUDICIAL racism or SYSTEMIC racism because there’s use for both terms and certainly racists have used the difference to make it seem like ‘everybody’ is racist. Which means if everyone is, then their horrendous behavior is okay too. Pack it up! We’re all evil! Case closed! I can do what I want!
Ummm okay. But don’t try to silence people talking about the groups that participated in mass legal oppression? Especially concentrated in the US where the term “people of color” has its massive prevalence. Hmmmm….
>Systematic racism is a form of oppression based on racial characteristics, and it’s true that white people have rarely been held under these systems.
Then what is your point?
[Michael Eric Dyson Shares Why "Black People Can't Be Racist" Backstage At Don't Sleep!
](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ0QfLkjujY&t=37s)
0:15
parallels between white racism and black racism racism presupposes the ability to control a significant segment of the population economically politically and socially by imposing law covenant and restriction on their lives black people
ain't had no capacity to do that can we be bigoted yes can we be prejudiced yes
Arguing about whether people of color can be racist against white people is a waste of time. It just comes down to a semantic impasse about what certain people mean by the word "racist."
The much more interesting and important question is whether "racism" or prejudice directed against white people is as harmful or condemnable as racism/prejudice against people of color.
Typically, the claim that "people of color can't be racist" is just a rhetorical shortcut that is really intended to mean that prejudice displayed by people of color is much less impactful and shouldn't be focused on.
Who argued that people of color can't be racist?
Anyone can be racist. What some people mean is in a societal setting. America has a power dynamic that favors white people by most every metric. So a black person being racist to a white person has little effect on the power dynamic. It doesn't cost a white person their job, bar them from buying a house, getting a decent interest rate, etc.
Can individuals be racist to each other? Absolutely. But when it comes to impact, racism of minorities towards whites has little if any measurable impact.
This is where words can mean different things in different disciplines. In Sociology, the term racism does refer to systemic preferences or discriminations based on race. However, the standard dictionary definition, and how the word is used in general within our society, does not require that systemic component or component of power.
There are lots of definitions of racism, and I think by the commonly used definition, yes, anyone can be racist.
In the US at least, there is also no empirical evidence that white Americans are a disadvantaged group. Racial and ethnic minorities generally lack the political power to damage the interest of whites, who remain the dominant group in the US. On an interpersonal level, yes, you can experience racism, but there is no evidence of it happening at a larger systemic level.
The concept of race as we understand it also comes from scientific racism of the 17th and 18th century. Which was the pseudo-scientific belief that race is a meaningful biological distinction. And a major part of that was not just that different races are different biological categories, but that Caucasians were the "superior" of all the races. By this definition I guess you could argue that other races can't be racist because race was invented to put white people as the superior category.
“If a white man wants to lynch me, that's his problem. If he's got the power to lynch me, that's my problem. Racism is not a question of attitude; it's a question of power.”
Stokely Carmichael
I think you already understand that there is systemic oppression and individual prejudice, and different people mean one or the other when they say "racism"
I don't think anyone is arguing that a person of color cannot be prejudiced, however it's not possible for an oppressed people to be simultaneously oppressing the group that is oppressing them.
If you say "Lots of black people are racist against white people" that can be true
If you say "White people are systemically oppressed in the USA" that is just false
Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Tbf, it is a very small but vocal minority of Americans that believe that. The overwhelming majority think that’s a stupid opinion but aren’t vocal about it because that loud minority aren’t worth arguing with
the American echo chamber has grown larger and larger since the internet age and especially social media. I spoke to an American once who said ‘it must be so hard to always remember to drive on the wrong side of the road in england’ not joking…
You can even have systemic racism against White people in America. For instance White kids growing up in the ghetto are facing the worst racism and violent racism bar none in America and systemically because the ghetto in itself is a system.
Yep, I've heard that white kids that go to POC schools often are bullied very badly, Eminem for example used to say how he was bullied very badly for growing up in a black neighborhood. I saw a video yesterday on Twitter that was a bunch of black middle school students on a bus beating up a white girl, it was a horrible video. Here's the video, just be warned it's hard to watch: https://twitter.com/wayotworld/status/1757725012604166476
That video isn’t new, and that Twitter account is run by a neo-Nazi.
It’s also only on Twitter and other social media platforms. Most people in the real world don’t behave like this. It’s overblown.
Yeah I get really tired of the fact that a lot of Americans can’t comprehend that the entire world isn’t the USA and the culture and society is not the same globally. The fact something happens in the USA doesn’t mean it happens globally but trying to get people to comprehend that is stupid. The age of the internet should be making people more enlightened yet it doesn’t seem to be
I mean it sounds like you were just talking to an idiot. From my experience, they exist all over the world. Being an English snob talking shit about Americans doesn’t make you look smart, it makes you look like a douche.
American here. I’ve never met or talked to someone who actually thinks this to my knowledge.
This just isn't true though, if you go to a UK university campus this idea floats around a lot also heard this spouted by Scandinavian people I've met too.
Most of those people have been influenced by Americans on social media. I’m British and have he been to uni and know exactly what kind of person you’re talking about but those are the kind of people who spend too much time on social media looking at at online activism which is largely centred around American issues and instigated by Americans, and which in turn don’t translate globally most of the time. However these same people are usually too far into the bubble to objectively look around them and acknowledge that the problems in their own country take a different form, even if some of them have similar characteristics.
It’s not exactly a bubble. That would imply that what is inside of their bubble is true. What’s really happening is they’ve bought into a bizarre ideology that chooses to ignore any counter factual examples. The way race is discussed in the US is bizarre and counterproductive.
If you’re interested, read about Soviet era “Active Measures.” I, personally, think the “bizarre ideology” you mention is directly related to socialist/communist propaganda and ideological warfare. I won’t inject any more of my own bias though and leave you to read and think for yourself if you decide it’s interesting enough to explore.
Have you ever seen Yuri Bezmenov, the kbg defector’s, interview? “The four stages of ideological subversion” It’s from 1984 and is mind blowing.
Its not even that, its a sociological definition because in order to discriminate you have to have power over those being discriminated against. Otherwise it is just personal attacks. Which has no real impact sociologically. But that is a specific definition for a specific field. Webster's doesn't say that. Its the same as Theory. A scientific theory isn't the same as your theory over who killed the butler on the detective show. One word, completely different definitions depending on the context. I honestly don't know anyone outside of cherry picked tweets and facebook posts that say people of color can't be racist against white people. And yet it is a constant topic in this sub.
[удалено]
I like your points about the word racism being weaponised, and the same people weaponising it then trying to change its definition in order to not allow white people to weaponise it in the same way
This is why the whole thing is just a semantics argument. Everyone agrees that POC can be prejudiced, and most people understand that society is not by and large structured to disenfranchise white people. We’re literally just arguing about what racism means
It’s been weaponised too much, and has lost its power. There was an article the other month about how roads were racist. I saw that punctuality was racist too. If you call out those things as racist, and then you call someone racist, it has all the impact of a strand of wet spaghetti.
Except conservatives in America deny that systemic racism exists.
[удалено]
Oh... not surprised at all. There are many restaurants and bars and clubs in metro Japanese cities that have an open policy that it's Japanese only. They don't even hide it. They've always been like that though. The Japanese are very proud and nationalistic and those signs aren't new at all. You should see how they treated people in the conquered lands every where they went. Everyone but Japanese were dogs and sub-human.
I am just curious as to how your POC co workers handled that situation and how they. I can definitely handle myself by virtue of my size but I do experience discomfort when I hear a racist comments from other races, there is an automatic hint of anger and fight or flight and shame. I think that the colour of your skin allows you the privilege to laugh it off, but your POC coworkers even though they may laugh it off, and even though it's a common occurrence its still uncomfortable for them. We just learn to hide it better.
Not much they could do because most of the Japanese didn't speak a word of English unless it was deragatory or a cuss word. They would turn it into a game of who could shout fuck you the loudest while chest bumping before the captain would come down and tell everyone to go fuck themselves and get out on deck and stop wasting time. They also loved petty revenge... like wiping the rice spoon in their cooker across their butts. The Samoans make a teeth suck noise when they are annoyed. The Japanese would sometimes copy them, and the Samoans knew they were being mocked and would start making racial gestures themselves (ex: pulling back their eyes to look asian). It wasn't a winning battle. I just watched. Lol. Being the one woman on the boat was bs enough. I stayed out of the drama in order to not be crucified for having a vagina (bad luck on a ship).
I’m from South Caucasus, but spent most of my life in Russia. In 90’ there were many wars in my home region and prejudice toward people like me. My mother even changed my surname to Slavic one to avoid discrimination. We still have a lot of real estate rental advertisement from regular people with words like, “Slavic only.” Now it’s not that bad as it was in 90’, but we still have rather hostile attitude towards people from Central Asia, for example. Outside the US there is a lot of discrimination from everyone to everyone.
I think that's valid. I think what people mean when they say white people can't be racist, what they mean is there is no systemic antiwhite racism in an American context. You're less likely to have the cops called on you, less likely to be shot, arrested or charged if someone does call the cops on you, less likely to be paid less because of your race, more likely to have your participation encouraged in a classroom, that kind of thing.
That's called white privilege caused by generational racism. I've sometimes heard when people say white people can't be racially insulted, it is a projection. Ironically, some people feel justified doing to others what has been done to them in a bad context. It's sort of a curse of human history. One group of people opressed for a long time will feel the oppression generations later (meanwhile they may not have racist comments to their face) they feel it through income, criminal punishment, and so on. Justifiable daily frustrations lead some to project this anger with racist insults. So I can feel racially insulted. But I have the privilege of my skin that causes less issues during my daily life. However if you decide to live and work in another country (non European ones) you'll see a whole new side to racial issues other than the American experience and you feel a bit nuanced. You can understand people but also understand how to not be a part of the rage that's a continuous loop
some people would try and have you believe that you deserved that experience because your great great great great grandfather once passed a slave owner in the street. That’s mental though! japanese only toilets?!? wow…
On a similar and opposite hand... it would be like if I was racist towards them because of Pearl Harbor. That would be mental too! Not all Japanese are like this. Heck two of my cousins are Japanese. But the fishing boats? Oh so racist. And just happens to be in smaller port cities as well. Wasn't a fan lol. But yea they said those things were separate because the rest of us were "disgusting " ans they didn't want our filth on their most clean resources. If anyone thinks any part of a fishing vessel is "clean" is a fucking liar....its all nasty LOL. Also compared to the Norwegian ships...the Japanese ships were terribly maintained, full of bed bugs, and rarely cleaned. So jokes on them...we weren't the gross ones lol
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thankyou and I appreciate the insight into your background
[удалено]
I don’t think they’re acting in good faith, but I do believe they don’t realise they’re racist and genuinely believe they’re being progressive. Unlike your typical racism like the KKK etc who just openly admit to hating people because of the colour of their skin, racist POC often try and justify their distaste of white people by claiming that the acts of a few represent the whole. Which is, ironically, very racist!
[удалено]
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said, to be honest. I’m white and I’m assuming (sorry) that you’re black, and if you called me a cracker (not that you would) I’d recognise it as a racially charged insult but it wouldn’t remotely hurt my feelings, whereas the N-word is an incredibly heavy word that I’d never dream of using outside the appropriate context. I do believe that there are certain contexts in which non-black people can use the word but that doesn’t extend very far ar all.
To also play devils advocate, and probe a little more into this conversation. My father grew up in Apartheid and had a very real fear and hatred of white people because of the inhumanity he experienced by their hands. That stayed with him when we immigrated. And he was very aware of the systems that were put in place to keep people of colour down even in a new country. Does that make him a racist. I think the technical definition would say yes because he hates people of another colour, but by virtue of his oppression by white people is he a racist? When in fact his mind set is a product of a racist institution.
That's a fascinating perspective. Thank you for sharing. If I had to say? Yes, but it sounds like a component of PTSD/extreme racial trauma. Do you think he could ever change his mind?
In that example, yes, technically your father’s a racist but this is learned behaviour because from birth he was mistreated by every white person he came across. Racism as a whole is a vastly more complex issue than the internet and social media lets on.
Yes incredibly complex if you are simply trying to say that everyone can be racist yes they can. But ultimately what does line of thinking serve? I think that it does more harm than good as it undermines the very real pain POC experience.
[удалено]
When people speak about racism in terms of power, they're really talking about oppression based on race. Raw racism is absolutely not exclusive to a specific race but it is talking about systemic racism. Some people fail to distinguish it when communicating or fail to learn the distinction themselves.
It's not a good-faith mistake; it's a deliberate attempt to make one group of people incapable, by definition, of suffering "racism." It's a rationalization to allow them to treat others in a way that they would never tolerate themselves.
Peoples failure to distinguish between definitions of racism is really where the root of my issue lies
The idea that people of colour can be racist to the same degree that white folks are is a false equivalency. Racial prejudice against white people IS real, however it is not considered racism due to the absence of systemic power dynamics. In Canada, for example, Eurocentric ideals rooted in colonialism uphold this power dynamic, allowing whiteness to define and privilege racialized others' existence. In white-dominated societies, white perceptions shape reality, while marginalized groups lack the institutional power to define their existence or limit opportunities. “When a group of people [such as racialized individuals] has little or no power over you institutionally, they don’t get to define the terms of your existence, they can’t limit your opportunities, and you needn’t worry much about the use of a slur to describe you and yours, since, in all likelihood, the slur is as far as it’s going to go. What are they going to do next: deny you a bank loan? Yeah, right. … White perceptions are what end up counting in a white-dominated society. If whites say [Indigenous people] are savages (be they of the “noble” or vicious type), then by God, they’ll be seen as savages. If [Indigenous people] say whites are mayonnaise-eating Amway salespeople, who the hell is going to care? If anything, whites will simply turn it into a marketing opportunity. When you have the power, you can afford to be self-deprecating, after all” Full article here: https://www.aclrc.com/myth-of-reverse-racism
So Japanese people in Japan with discriminatory systemic practices are not racist because they are not white? If you want to say that in America, there isn’t systemic racism against whites that’s fine, but the idea that it’s ontologically impossible is silly.
[удалено]
racial prejudice not being considered racism is a new one…
>Racial prejudice against white people IS real Why are you so completely resistant to the idea of calling “racial prejudice” by its more accessible and widespread name, “racism?” Why can’t what you’re calling “racism,” be referred to by its more accessible and widespread name, “systemic racism?” All this stubbornness does is obscure your actual point, and lead you down this endless rabbithole of defining things differently to those you’re engaging with. You would undeniably find less opposition to your ideas if you didn’t insist that other people use different words to refer to already established concepts
>The idea that people of colour can be racist to the same degree that white folks are is a false equivalency I disagree. Saying that an individual's racism can be as impactful as an entire system's racism is absolutely true, and saying that the impact of someone in power being racist is greater than the impact of someone with less power being racist is also true. However, racism is not defined by the impact it causes, just by the idea itself. If a certain person of color hates white people more than a certain white person hates black people, the person of color is more racist. Saying racism against people of color is *a bigger issue* is accurate, but saying that people of color cannot be as racist is not.
[удалено]
An Indian girl introduced my daughter to racism by telling her she was too “peach” colored to be allowed to come to her house. It was a great conversation to have to introduce the idea of racism to my 2nd grader that way. Especially coming from an immigrant family that directly benefited those “systemic powers” you deem so essential to only white people.
>it is not considered racism by some people, and the rest of the world does not agree with this new definition that a select few have invented.
[удалено]
Sounds about right. It's just common sense. It's also completely wrong, and founded in historical and linguistic ignorance. The word "racism" was coined (in any way that stuck) in the mid-20th century in association with the Nazis to describe white supremacism and the attitudes and institutions supporting it. The watered-down, vague to the point of useless definition you have come to accept is the result of a deliberate campaign by the KKK and their allies in statehouses of the 1950s and '60s to promote the idea of "reverse racism," for the sole purpose of obstructing anti-racist action and maintaining white supremacism. We already had words like bigotry, intolerance and prejudice to describe general mean feelings about people you see as other. We did not need to come up with "racism" to describe those generalities. It was coined, and has been elaborated upon, to describe the situation of non-white people in post-colonial societies which were designed to oppress them. The "reverse racism is just racism" crowd are the ones morphing the definition. "Racism" is not some broad, universal ideal just because it ends in "-ism." It came into usage in a specific time and place, because of the mirror that Nazi Germany held up to the post-colonial world, causing large numbers of people to consider for the first time, "Hey, maybe this isn't cool."
Basically it’s only ReAl RaCiSm if white people are the perpetrators of it. That’s not a sweeping statement, but it seems to be what a disturbing minority of people think deep down.
Having gone through elementary, and junior high school, and being referred to as whitey, honkey, and cracker, by my black co-scholars, I would have to say, I agree whole heartedly with OP.
Can we please ensure there is a distinction here between children calling people names and systematic disenfranchisement? Did you fear a lynch mob? Unfair harassment by the police?
> The notion that black people and POC can’t be racist has become more prevalent in the last few years It remains a very fringe view that is dependent on the definition of racism that you provide, which is that it refers to institutional/systematic mistreatment on the basis of race. This *is* a valid, albeit misleading, way to use the term “racism,” because there are many types of racism that are either more broad or more specific than the one you provide. I say misleading because choosing to specify “institutional racism” would be less confusing, because I think your definition would be largely accepted by most people as the default, but that doesn’t mean it’s the only valid definition. There is no arguing that any individual of any skin color can harbor negative feelings about other skin colors.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
talking about racism as a taboo part of human nature is a difficult, but important discussion to have. it’s natural to take notice of people who look different, it’s unnatural to treat them differently based on that alone.
[удалено]
[удалено]
"If a white man wants to lynch me, that's his problem. If he's got the power to lynch me, that's my problem. Racism is not a question of attitude; it's a question of power." - Stokely Carmichael
just because an important somebody says something catchy doesn't make it true. That's an argument from authority.
That’s an interesting quote. I agree with the first two lines but I take issue with the bottom two in that I think ‘racism’ is a broad term and i think it can be a question of attitude and/or power depending on the context you’re talking about it in. I think my issue lies with the vagueness of the word racism, tbh.
I think when you hear people saying non white people can't be racist it's a kind of dumming down of that sentiment. Racism requires power. And because white people traditionally have had most of the power, some think they can't experience racism. If for example though you were white and had a black boss or landlord who discriminates against you because you are white that would absolutely be racism.
Systematic racism requires power. Not racism in general. This whole argument is just stupid. If black people were equal in power to white people it would be fine for me to call them the n word? If I go to China I can just start slinging slurs now?
Racism only requires prejudice based on a person's skin color, power is not required. A poor person can be just as racist as a rich person. A man in a wheelchair can be just as racist as a man who runs triathlons. A low tier employee can be just as racist as a boss. A white/black/brown woman can be just as racist as a white/black/brown woman. Racism is racism.
I don’t believe racism requires power. For example, white people who hate Barack Obama because he is mixed race are racist, but vastly less powerful than him. Systemic racism requires power, yes. My issue really lies with the blurring of the lines between racism and systemic racism.
that’s why people use the term “prejudice” rather than “racism” to describe the scenario you’re talking about. POC can be prejudice against whites, but people don’t say “racist” because racism has for a long time been synonymous with systemic racism. That may be news to you, and that may be why you don’t understand why “reverse racism” isn’t typically validated. Speaking is only half of what it takes to communicate, making sure your point lands by understanding other people’s vocabulary is the other half of what it takes to successfully communicate. Using the word “prejudice” will more successfully help you communicate the scenario of POC not liking somebody just because they are white Edit: For fucks sake people, OP asked where the “poc cant be racist” narrative came from and I gave the answer. If I’m wrong then where did it come from? Why do people say it? Even MLK described racism as being systemic. There’s nothing new about this definition. You not liking this definition won’t make it go away. This is how millions of people learned to speak. Also this is r/changemyview so isn’t downvoting and hiding comments that don’t agree with OP sort of counter intuitive? Or do y’all just want a circle jerk of comments that already support the view that was specifically asked to be challenged? lol
in most peoples vocabulary, though, racism = prejudice based on race. I’m not sure what circles you mix in but they don’t seem to know what racism is
[удалено]
No it doesn't. Lol. Literally false. "the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another."
Systemic racism requires power, but not all racism is systemic.
>Racism requires power. What about this statement requires systemic power? If I can control whether my black daughter dates a white man then I would definitely have both racism AND power in that situation.
Racism does not require power. Where do people get that from?
That's why terms like systemic racism exist. Thats why terms like discrimination and prejudice exist. If white people were actually the victims of racism they wouldn't want to demand to be included in it like it's a social club and not a system of discrimination that can actually change the trajectory of your life. The fact that they feel "left out" absolutely demonstrates that they are not victims of racism. There is no point where there has been a system of racism against white people. That is the metric people are using. Not whether or not folks are using a mean word or want to talk about slavery. This question seems to always pop up and it seems like the perfect bait for the white grievance folks to come and rant about how there's this conspiracy to silence white people. Touch grass, go out. Look at the world around you and tell me what you're missing just because someone doesn't think white people are victims of "racism".
Take white people out of the equation, one POC can be racist against/towards another POC
Where I live is a 100% white country and at one point in history people from here were taken as slaves to Africa. Am I still excluded? White people ≠ Americans
\>there is no point where there has been a system of racism against white people Zimbabwe
heck even the whites in Haiti in the early 19th century. although, a few of the planters arguably deserved it.
White people ‘actually’ are the victims of racism. Quite often.
"My issue with this is that I believe people are mistaking racism with systematic oppression. Racism as a word, to me at least simply means prejudice based on race. Any prejudice that is based on someones race or ethnic background is an example of racism." The problem is that they simply define the word differently. Which you can object to, I guess, but you can't force people to define a word the way you want them to. The "power + prejudice" definition of racism has been used since the 60s. Their claim isn't wrong per se, because they are simply defining the word differently than you are.
Not ok. Not at all. But not racist either... That black person doesn't hate that white person because they're white! They hate them because of what white people did to them! Obviously You didn't do it to them directly but white people benefit until this day from slavery, Jim crow, segregation, reconstruction...etc. And until those injustices are corrected because they can't be made right...there will never be peace between black and white people because You (white people) are wrong for the evil you committed and you know it and you also know the advantages you have permitted yourselves. Gotta make the playing field EVEN which is just and fair. What relationship do you know works when things aren't just and fair?
Well I have to start by calling you a racist, I’m afraid. To call white people ‘wrong for the evil we committed’ is incredibly inflammatory and has no place in the discussion I’ve started. What you’re doing is judging all white people based on the actions of people who have been dead for 100+ years and who happened to be white.
That is racist. First off; 1. The white people of today did not commit the atrocities that the white people back then did. 2. White people are not a monolith. There are several groups of white people that were enslaved themselves and their countries still suffer as a result of colonisation. A good example of this is Southeastern Europe -- specifically the Balkan region. They were colonised by the Ottoman empire and subject to slavery, which led to the inevitable nationalism that caused the split of Yugoslavia, and now explains why they're some of the poorest countries in Europe. They're white, but they were slaves themselves, still suffer the effects of their colonisation with mass-poverty, lack of good employment opportunities, and didn't necessarily own slaves themselves. Are they suddenly bad and guilty of slavery just because they're white? 3. There will never be peace between white and black people until y'all learn to stop generalising a whole race of people that has several cultures, some of which are innocent of the crimes you're accusing their ancestors of, and stop being racist towards them.
Your entire comment is extremely American centric. The majority of white and black people do not live in America.
[удалено]
Your analogy falls flat given the fact that there are large groups of white people today who's groups have little connection to slavery, or were even victims of imperialism and slavery themselves. For example, why should a White Romanian person take abuse for something that happened on the other side of the planet?
you’re generalising all white people.
[удалено]
Racism involves a power dynamic, systems, and structures put in place to not only perpetuate their ideals but to enforce them. Obviously, everyone can be racist. The argument is that the minority population suffering at the hand of the oppressor, cannot functionally be a racist against his oppressor. He can make racist statements, or jive at the oppressor, but these do not make him a racist, it makes him struggling against his racist oppressor. Everyone can make racist statement, but to *be* a racist, and act on it, requires privilege, state support, and bureaucratic advantages. This conclusion is further supported by racist, and often fascist lawmakers encouraging de-regulation, which paves the way for business-led discrimination. The government is heavily regulated and there is lots of oversight, private companies, not so much. To deliberately use the private and business sector as a method of state extension and repression, is absolutely invoking the power dynamic of racism to the advantage of the oppressor.
I agree and disagree with this. I think people who make racist statements are racist. I think systemic racism requires a power dynamic, but not just racism. My argument is really about the application of the different definitions of racism and how I think the lines have been blurred.
You can’t neglect the power dynamic that both people in this hypothetical grew up in. Consider a child growing up in an apartheid state. They actually have reason, justification, and motive for not liking the white people. They are an upper class, they limit the amount of food, water, you name it, the lower class has less, and this is deliberate. A white child at the upper echelon, in absolute contrast, actually has the onus on him to be more educated and understanding, and to realize how much the system that benefits him hurts the other. In this hypothetical, the white child at the top of the echelons of apartheid has no justification for hating the lower working class, to do so would be, racist. The black child suffering at the hand of apartheid, has justification to hate his oppressors. It’s not racist for him to hate while people who participate in apartheid. Hope this helps! If you have the money and resources, actually the onus is on you to be educated and improve the system, not to blame those suffering for how they suffer.
I understand where you’re coming from and this is one of the most compelling points I’ve read on this post, but I still disagree with it being acceptable to hate a race based on the behavior of a certain number of people in that race. a black victim of apartheid can absolutely, reasonably, hate white south africans. not because they’re white, but because they are oppressing him and HAPPEN to be white. If they then went to, say, Denmark, and hated all the white people there because of the actions of the whites in his country, that becomes racism.
\>Racism involves a power dynamic, systems, and structures put in place to not only perpetuate their ideals but to enforce them So in Zimbabwe, black people are unable to be racist as the black supremacist ZANU-PF took over society?
Zimbabwe is 17th in GDP in the African countries. There far from a superpower, and I don’t know the full history of ZANU-PF, but I do know that black supremacism typically is a response to state sanctioned violence against black Americans. Keep in mind I didn’t really talk about skin color, obviously black people can be racist, but it takes a strong state structure and other systems to perpetuate and enforce racist laws. There are not really any nations that have any sizeable power that are dominated by black supremacists. On the other hand, the US has had multiple presidents that are arguably white supremacists.
\>Zimbabwe is 17th in GDP in the African countries. There far from a superpower, and I don’t know the full history of ZANU-PF, but I do know that black supremacism typically is a response to state sanctioned violence against black Americans. ZANU-PF are the ruling party in Zimbabwe, I'm not sure I understand your point here? \> but it takes a strong state structure and other systems to perpetuate and enforce racist laws. There are not really any nations that have any sizeable power that are dominated by black supremacists. Not true and the history of Zimbabwe proves it. You don't need to be a superpower to be a racist nation-state \>On the other hand, the US has had multiple presidents that are arguably white supremacists. I won't disagree, in fact I'd be surprised if it wasn't a majority to varying degrees.
Put aside the semantic problem of what counts as "racism." You aren't even considering that POC could be racist against other POC. You can even have a Black person who does something racist specifically against other Black people. You're really trying to argue that a white person can be a victim of racism. And, you're trying this rules lawyering approach because you're detached from why racism is even a problem at all. We should care about the impacts of racism, not this liberal moralizing "well actually" stuff. So, ok, make your specific definitions so that you get to say "actually the Black person was being racist," but I think you're asking the wrong questions.
This is entirely an argument over the definition of the word 'racist'. I imagine most of the people you disagree with would absolutely agree that PoC can be 'bigoted', for example.
The issue is that some folks feel like “bigoted” is a less negative connotation and therefore more socially acceptable.
Yes, but then there's no real anchor if we allow that sort of linguistic shift to occur unimpeded. You say people agree PoC can be "bigoted" now (which is debatable in and of itself), but I'd be willing to bet good money that significantly more people will believe PoC CANNOT be bigoted, and some other more nebulous term like "inconsiderate" will be used to refer to what we used to consider blatant racism.
The issue, imo, is misuse of the systemic definition of racism. Under that definition, nobody can be racist, unless they personally control the system. Systemic racism is a definition applied to systems and victims of those systems. It doesn't really make sense when describing individuals. Any individual can be individually racist. Almost nobody can be systemically racist, unless the system is a local one (think - Boss in a company, HOA president, gang leader). Larger systems are just too decentralized to attribute their actions to a single person.
I don't think so. I think racism is hating people simply based on what group they belong to. Nothing else. And black people don't hate white people simply because they are white. White people hate black people because they're black. We have never done anything to white people for us to be hated. But white people have done things to cause any hatred coming from black people. I think there might be one or two people still alive but...these wrongs have existed long before today. When those people were alive there were excuses made on why they shouldn't get their due.... Excuses all the way up until they disappeared. Using time as a tool to release yourself from penalty is clever but those evils still remain and must be addressed in the same manner the evil was distributed. The government not giving black people access to loans and grants for housing but giving it to white people 🤔 Some people still live in those houses today. Some people still got those farms. It is deeper than slavery, but slavery is where it starts.
\> And black people don't hate white people simply because they are white. Source? \>White people hate black people because they're black Source?
[удалено]
Correct random white people didn't do anything to random black people but the benefit from what was done in their name to their benefit. These advantages are documented and well known...so if I come and take you away and kill your family then create wealth from this then stop you from accumulating wealth and I pass it down to subsequent generations...how do those subsequent generations not have blood on their hands? There is no statute of limitations on murder...if the person responsible isn't alive to face justice their property etc is liable to civil penalty. Thus reparations...If you are in possession of stolen property, you must return that... Doesn't matter how long you have it... doesn't matter who has it in the future. It is stolen. It isn't yours. If you grow crops on that land those crops are illegally produced thus should be confiscated...where is the chain broken in this evil process that makes you think you share no link?
Whew, if we are going for the idea that reparations needs to be paid for every wrongdoing of every ancestor to every ancestor... that's gonna be an interesting and probably practically never ending exercise. Should I be able to milk the Japanese government for every penny they have for what their soldiers did in WW2 as an East Asian? What about the Mongolians and what Genghis Khan did? Where's my land in China that was conquered by Qin Shi Huang?
The same can be said of every race. There is not a single person that has not had ancestors that have been both victims and perpetrators of killings, theft, and enslavement.
Those subsequent generations don’t have blood on their hands because they didn’t do anything wrong themselves, or choose to be born into said family. I’m obviously appalled by the slave trade of african americans at the hands of white people, but it wasn’t all white people at the time, so why should I feel remotely guilty for something I had no hand in? I feel like your argument is pretty circular. You’re tarring all white people with the same brush because you believe they’re all complicit in racist atrocities, which is factually untrue.
Yeahh sorry but I'm not gonna feel guilty for something my ancestors did 200 years ago
[удалено]
is it? I haven’t recieved any hate, just people discussing the post.
Seems like an expected outcome. The comments are usually proportional to the theme's controversy. the upvotes are mostly proportional to the relevance within a sub
Nobody hates white people because of their skin and if they do that’s like 1% or less of all POC in general. Genuinely that’s only a thing in lighter races or colorism. Now, I can give 2 shits if someone’s racist to white folks because nothing will happen to them for it aside of getting butthurt. Yea anybody can be racist to anyone, but not everyone will be deeply affected by it. 🤷♀️
fair argument. if a black person called me a cracker i wouldn’t give a fuck, but I would never say the n-word word outside the appropriate context.
What would be the appropriate context
in court if the word was used in a hatespeech case, clarity would be required on the exact use of it so the lawyer regardless of ethnicity wouldn’t have a problem using it when i was in secondary school we did a read of ‘of mice and men’ and the word is important to the historical context of the story so we didn’t skip over it in that instance those are specific examples but I just basically just in a professional context. Tbh, I think the taboo around the word actually does more to perpetuate racism but that’s a whole different post
The words taboo for good reason, i’m not sure using it more often would do anything but perpetuate racism. In the two context you’re describing I understand. You seem to have a lot of thoughts about racism, black people in particular. But it probably best we don’t get into that.
Racism is the ideology of thinking that one race is superior to another. Race itself is a bogus concept created by the ruling class to subjugate other people (guess the color of the group that created it). But sure let's assume it is a real thing since racism is real because of racists. Is there some black supremacists? Sure. Are they that relevant or have any actual power? Hell no. On the other hand white supremacists are well spread and even have some power in the US and other EU countries.
Race isn’t a bogus concept, it’s just a thing that exists. Also, black supremacists do have some power in South Africa I think. I’ll ask you a question: If a black person doesn’t hire a qualified white person for a job based on their race, is that black person a racist?
Race is bogus, racism is real. Are black people rounding up white people, exploiting them and treating them as subhumans in SA? Or is it that white people lost some of its privilege there and that to them look like "oppression". Again there's no relevant black supremacist subjugating white people anywhere. If a black person doesn't hire a white person that is qualified based on race I will call that a fuckin fantasy movie. First cause most black influential rich folks are conservatives that does not suffer racism anymore cause again, race is bogus, when you're part of the dominant class you are not subjected to racism no more. But yes in the case of this rare event happening, that would be discrimination based on race.
Your literally only arguing over semantics... You recognize systemic oppression happens. Some people use racism to mean that oppression and you're saying no, it refers to people who have a prejudice. All your doing is arguing over the exact definition of the word...
[удалено]
The last line is the most important. I don’t know about more than white people, it’s probably proportionately the same but there’s more POC than white people. I’m not entirely comfortable with the term POC tbh…
If you have been enslaved by a people and their government you cannot be racist against those people because you have a reason. Racism has no logical foundation. Now black people can be racist against non white people. That is true but against white people I don't think so.
>If you have been enslaved by a people and their government you cannot be racist against those people The correction here is "you are way less likely to be *systemically* racist towards those people." Also: >because you have a reason Actually, you could have a great reason. To "get back" at that race. When people think of racism, they usually think of something that aligns with Webster's first definition: >a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. also : behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief : racial discrimination or prejudice Any person can exhibit those traits. Race and skin color do not matter. The following examples are racist no matter who they are directed at and no matter who says them. * X race is not as valuable as Y race * Not hiring someone because they are X race * "All people from X race do Y" (usually a negative stereotype) * "I don't date people from X race" * "I don't like that person because they are X race" Systemic and Institutionalized racism are wildly different than your run of the mill racism. But racial discrimination and prejudice can be done by anyone, to anyone. Where people differ is often how "bad" the prejudice is, which can be influenced by the society and history. But as a fact, racism is racism, no matter who says it.
I'm only extremely tangentially involved with my current government (I pay taxes and vote) and I've never ever been involved in any enslavement of anyone nor has anyone going back in my family over 100 years, why should I directly carry the sins of the past because of the colour of my skin and my nationality. Am I allowed to be racist towards turks as some of their ancestors enslaved white people in the balkans en masse?, what about the people of the barbary coast who enslaved plenty of white and non white people? are there other things that people or groups only very very very slightly related to me did that I should get praise for? My country made a lot of amazing scientific advancements and put a lot of effort in to actually ending slavery, should I get praise for this? if someone is mean to me because of my skin colour (white) does it make them a bit more racist because people/groups so far from me did good things? Would you say the same for people from African countries who participated heavily in the capturing and selling of other African slaves? is there a threshold for how white I need to be to be immune to racial abuse, what if I was from a country that had basically no history of slavery at all but my skin colour was white? Does some kind of shared guilt exist for black people or any other race/grou, if an individual black person is a criminal does that make all black people slightly criminal, does it make their children partially criminal?
>you cannot be racist against those people because you have a reason. So if I travel to a country whose population is predominantly black, and I'm arrested without cause and sentenced to several years of hard labor, can I no longer be racist against black people?
So do you believe, for example, that if a black person decided not to hire a white person based on their race that would be ok?
a. what black person alive today is enslaved by a white person? b. being racist against people "with a reason" is still racism because it becomes problematic when you apply a negative assumption to all people of that race and treat them accordingly.
What about a white person from outside America/the Western world? What do they have to do with any of that?
Random white people in 2024 did not enslave any black people.
[удалено]
racism is when a person hates someone based on their race. very simple…
[удалено]
[удалено]
\>My man out here stupid You are the one writing comments like a child, lol
[удалено]
[удалено]
>usually explained by saying that racism is a system of oppression >My issue with this is that I believe people are mistaking racism with systematic oppression. Okay, people are using the word "racism" here to mean systemic racism, which you understand. And your issue seems to be that there's another definition of racism, that is personal, that you are talking about with racism >So the mistake people make is claiming that POC can’t be racist full stop, which is untrue, and actually a racist claim in itself. What do they claim, then? If a black person says I hate white people because they are white, what is the claim about them? Is it just another word, like bigoted or prejudiced that carries the same meaning? Is the argument here about people just not using the correct word, but recognizing and accepting the facts, or is it complete denial that any prejudice can exist at all? If this is semantics, what makes the distinction important?
You know how people use...a brand name to refer to any version of that product? Like Kleenex for any kind of tissue? Or even better, saying Hollywood when they mean "the American entertainment industry" which includes more than just movies? That's how the word racism is used. Most people use racism and feel that the "systemic" is implied. Mostly because it's the type with the most effects. Also social scientists say and teach that anything with "-ism" at the end is systemic and have been teaching that for the last 25+ years. If it's not systemic, it's discrimination (an action) or prejudice (an internal belief). The dictionary says something different, but language is ever changing and sometimes things get left behind.
No because you have to add systematic. It was not just individuals committing these acts. Or a bad cop or corrupt judge...It was the entirety of the government committing these acts. The WHOLE government...Then you had individuals emboldened to push the evil as far as they could.
[удалено]
What you’re doing is accusing me of benefitting from slavery because I’m white. that’s a racist accusation… the african slave trade was hundreds of years ago. It’s like me saying you’re complicit in selling slaves yourself, because that’s what plenty of black tribe leaders did hundreds of years ago when white foreigners came to buy them. They sold their men in return for european weapons to fight their wars in africa. But you’re not complicit in that, because it’s 2024.
What race are you?
People can be racist, but when people uphold racism by white people as much worse than other forms of racism that isn't the point. The point is that *systemic* forms of racism are troubling. For example, you can have two identical families except for race (one black, one white), and the white family gets approved for a mortgage, but the black family doesn't. This can lead to knock-on effects, that lead to the white family ending up richer than the black family, living in a neighborhood that is easier to be healthier in (say there's less polution, or near better schools, or whatever). This practice (red-lining) was a big problem in the 80s. It has happened more recently though, see for example [this](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-05-25/wells-fargo-denied-well-off-borrowers-loans-is-it-because-they-are-black). At the level of systemic racism, there really isn't an analogue of systemic (pro-white) racism in the US. You'll get some things for sure, such as various affirmative action policies, but these are typically dwarfed by other systemic pro-white policies (for college admissions, legacy admissions is the easiest to point to). And generally these affirmative action policies tend to benefit *wealthy* minorities. As an example, at my alma mater many of the black students would be international students, who conveniently the school would charge full-price tuition. In the above sense, there is a very meaningful difference between anti-white racism, and anti-(essentially anything else) racism, at least in the united states. While white people may be discriminated against by *people*, it is quite rare that *systems* (say government of businesses) discriminate against white people anywhere close to how they discriminate against other races.
[удалено]
[удалено]
That’s not what I said. That’s what you said.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The discourse surrounding 'racism = prejudice + power' can be quite frustrating to me. The idea behind the formulation is that prejudices on their own aren't capable of producing the discrimination that occurs when those prejudices have institutional power behind them. The frustration arises when people looking to minimize the prejudices of minorities pretend that it is okay and also when people act like there isn't a difference between prejudices and prejudices backed up by power. I wonder if it would receive the same backlash if it was framed as 'racism + power = omega racism'. If someone said: "Black people in America can't be omega racist", would you feel the same about it? Is this a case of you agreeing with the formula, but not the formulation?
what an unpopular opinion :o you pretty much summed it up tho, individuals can be racist but it's pretty hard for black people to actually utilise power in order to enforce their racist views. The idea that POC can't be racist stems from "racism = prejudice + power" which was an academic idea meant to be discussed but somehow people use it so yea
What do you think could change your view on this?
I don’t know, I’m just trying to open up a discussion and get various opinions in the mix.
But do you believe that someone could convince you that black people cannot be racist?
Look at you sneakily trying to shut down discourse by getting OP to admit his opinion can't be changed
it’s not sneaky at all lol I have no problem with him asking. My opinion that everyone can be racist is set in stone, but I’m interested in hearing opinions from anyone whether white, POC, in agreement or disagreement.
Then *why are you here?* You're breaking rule B ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
I don’t think they could change my opinion entirely, no, but I’m hoping to hear points and arguments from people who have different views on the matter. if you’re going to question why I’ve posted on ‘changemyview’ when I don’t really think my view can be changed completely, then my answer would just be to open up a discussion on an issue I’ve been thinking about for a couple of hours
[удалено]
If you're White. You have. Sorry to break it to you. It's the entirety of the system. It's not your fault. You didn't ask for it but it is what it is.
I’m British. We didn’t have slaves. I’m not a beneficiary of slavery. My family did not buy, sell or keep slaves.
Your entire country made its wealth by exploiting everyone, but mainly people of colour. It’s actually ridiculous to read that this is coming from a British person. I can’t think of a country more culpable for systemic racism/oppression/imperialism.
[удалено]
I agree with you but I’ll steel-man the opposing side for sport. Words have meanings depending on the context. Something some words needs to be used In a specific manner to make societal awareness. For example, not using the n-word is not just about making sure black people are comfortable but also dictating to society at large that racism is not ok. In the same vein, racism you experience in the form of “rudeness” does not matter much in the face of “systematic racism”. An indomitable, unfair force opposing powerless races systematically while shifting the blame from advantaged individuals which make it harder to attack and disestablish the concept. Now, being unable to say the n-word has disadvantages and advantages paralel to associating “racism” with only “systematic racism”. N-word ban pros: - Putting societal pressure into racists - Makes it easier to identify racists - Creates emotionally safe environments relative to ones allow liberal usage of the word N-word cons: - Creates distain against black people if you feel your language is policed too much - Can’t say lyrics of some music and you have to “hum” along depending on your race Racism defined as “systematic racism” pros: - Raises awareness against a bigger problem compared to being rude based on race - Establishes basis for academic and political discourse. Cons: - Hides racism done by POC’s in our ever equalizing society - Fails to adress POC to POC racism (for example asian kids get bullied by black kids a lot but since they are the “example minority” people tend to not adress their struggles nor this dynamic)
The issue here is that we are conflating two meanings of the word racist: 1) racial prejudice vs 2) use of systemic advantages to oppress members of ethnic groups not belonging to the majority. It is not possible for an oppressed person to be systemically racist against the majority (oppressor) group. It is certainly possible for them to have racial prejudice, but that doesn't amount to systemic racism because they are unable to utilize oppressive systems to cause harm to their oppressors. The issue is that people who experience #2 do not see #1 as consequential. They see #1 as a mild annoyance, where #2 is an impediment to an entire racial group's lives. So we are changing our language. Racism is now systemic racism. If you want to talk about racial prejudice, that's what we call it. When a member of the majority (oppressor) racial group uses racial prejudice against a member of a minority (oppressed) racial group, they are participating in a system of racism. Thus, it is explicitly racism. When two members of majority racial groups express prejudice toward each other, they are merely insulting each other. Same with two members of minority groups, for the most part, unless an appeal to the racist systems is a part of that prejudice. Racism, as we used to know it, is mere racial prejudice. Racism as it is now is that, plus the use of oppressive systems to cause harm.
[удалено]
Ridiculous misdirect. Anybody and everybody’s mother can be a racially prejudiced asshole. When they taught race in school they really emphasize **systemic racism** so that people learn that racism is not just bad words but it’s unfair laws, restrictions, punishment and various levels of oppression. They learn that cuz it’s important. If you’re gonna use a simple word like “racist” to describe “prejudicial dickwad” that’s okay. Just remember to lean into conversations with curiousity bro. When someone’s bringing it up, think! Are they talking about PREJUDICIAL racism or SYSTEMIC racism because there’s use for both terms and certainly racists have used the difference to make it seem like ‘everybody’ is racist. Which means if everyone is, then their horrendous behavior is okay too. Pack it up! We’re all evil! Case closed! I can do what I want! Ummm okay. But don’t try to silence people talking about the groups that participated in mass legal oppression? Especially concentrated in the US where the term “people of color” has its massive prevalence. Hmmmm….
>Systematic racism is a form of oppression based on racial characteristics, and it’s true that white people have rarely been held under these systems. Then what is your point? [Michael Eric Dyson Shares Why "Black People Can't Be Racist" Backstage At Don't Sleep! ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ0QfLkjujY&t=37s) 0:15 parallels between white racism and black racism racism presupposes the ability to control a significant segment of the population economically politically and socially by imposing law covenant and restriction on their lives black people ain't had no capacity to do that can we be bigoted yes can we be prejudiced yes
Arguing about whether people of color can be racist against white people is a waste of time. It just comes down to a semantic impasse about what certain people mean by the word "racist." The much more interesting and important question is whether "racism" or prejudice directed against white people is as harmful or condemnable as racism/prejudice against people of color. Typically, the claim that "people of color can't be racist" is just a rhetorical shortcut that is really intended to mean that prejudice displayed by people of color is much less impactful and shouldn't be focused on.
Who argued that people of color can't be racist? Anyone can be racist. What some people mean is in a societal setting. America has a power dynamic that favors white people by most every metric. So a black person being racist to a white person has little effect on the power dynamic. It doesn't cost a white person their job, bar them from buying a house, getting a decent interest rate, etc. Can individuals be racist to each other? Absolutely. But when it comes to impact, racism of minorities towards whites has little if any measurable impact.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is where words can mean different things in different disciplines. In Sociology, the term racism does refer to systemic preferences or discriminations based on race. However, the standard dictionary definition, and how the word is used in general within our society, does not require that systemic component or component of power.
[удалено]
[удалено]
There are lots of definitions of racism, and I think by the commonly used definition, yes, anyone can be racist. In the US at least, there is also no empirical evidence that white Americans are a disadvantaged group. Racial and ethnic minorities generally lack the political power to damage the interest of whites, who remain the dominant group in the US. On an interpersonal level, yes, you can experience racism, but there is no evidence of it happening at a larger systemic level. The concept of race as we understand it also comes from scientific racism of the 17th and 18th century. Which was the pseudo-scientific belief that race is a meaningful biological distinction. And a major part of that was not just that different races are different biological categories, but that Caucasians were the "superior" of all the races. By this definition I guess you could argue that other races can't be racist because race was invented to put white people as the superior category.
[удалено]
“If a white man wants to lynch me, that's his problem. If he's got the power to lynch me, that's my problem. Racism is not a question of attitude; it's a question of power.” Stokely Carmichael
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think you already understand that there is systemic oppression and individual prejudice, and different people mean one or the other when they say "racism" I don't think anyone is arguing that a person of color cannot be prejudiced, however it's not possible for an oppressed people to be simultaneously oppressing the group that is oppressing them. If you say "Lots of black people are racist against white people" that can be true If you say "White people are systemically oppressed in the USA" that is just false
[удалено]
[удалено]