Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Top Secret Researcher
#76 Old 1st May 2016 at 11:03 PM Last edited by Pideli : 1st May 2016 at 11:19 PM.
Yes, anyone can be racist, by definition. End of story. As soon as a definition reaches the dictionary, it becomes legit, that was a legitimate response. No, you don't need to be "privileged" to be racist, you simply need to hold the belief of racism. Link to me any legitimate definition that supports your notion that racism is privilege + power, or I will stick to the notion that it's made up.

How about toning down the arrogance? But as the saying goes: "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence"
- Charles Bukowski
Advertisement
Lab Assistant
#77 Old 7th May 2016 at 9:52 PM Last edited by SerenaOhSerena : 8th May 2016 at 8:46 AM.
Default Pause. Wtf?
Quote: Originally posted by Pideli
How about toning down the arrogance? But as the saying goes: "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence"
- Charles Bukowski


Toning my arrogance down? You're in Sweden and trying to tell me that you experience racism?

Quote: Originally posted by Pideli
Yes, anyone can be racist, by definition. End of story. As soon as a definition reaches the dictionary, it becomes legit, that was a legitimate response. No, you don't need to be "privileged" to be racist, you simply need to hold the belief of racism.


I'm not buying it. Sorry but you trying to convince me that white people are marginalized is pure absurdity and you have no claims to back it up. And you most certainly cannot tell me, a black woman, a marginalized double minority, what it means to experience racism or what it means to be marginalized.

Quote: Originally posted by Pideli
Link to me any legitimate definition that supports your notion that racism is privilege + power, or I will stick to the notion that it's made up.


1. Definitions of Racism citation from the Clarke University's Multicultural Student Services
http://www.clarke.edu/media/files/M...onsofracism.pdf

2. Definitions of Systemic Racism citation from Harvard, University, Yale University, and a host of other high standing institutions
Sociology of Racism (Harvard University) http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/ma...ndenis_2015.pdf
Patterns of Racism (Yale University) http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculu...94.04.03.x.html
Article from Andover University, magazine "The Pedagogy of the Meaning of Racism" https://www.andover.edu/About/Newsr...smSWJournal.pdf

3. Chart of Gender wage gap for women of color compared to white men (source from American Association of University Women: http://www.aauw.org/2014/09/18/gender-pay-gap/)



4. Summer Employment Rates by Race and Ethnicity (source cited from Bureau of Labor Statistics)


4. Chart showing unemployment rate by Race and Ethnicity and Educational Attainment


5. Cite your sources for the following:
A) Examples throughout history in which White Americans have experienced systemic racism at the hand of minorities
B) History books revealing white people having experienced slavery on a massive scale for many generations that are still affecting them today (gentrification sources, etc.)
C) A graph showing how White men and women make less in the workforce than Black Americans
D) A graph showing how White people who hold the same degree as minorities are still less likely to get the job over a minority

Since you seem to firmly believe that white people can experience racism surely you can easily find citations for the aforementioned list. Furthermore, please explain the cause within each of the charts I have listed, for you to claim white people can experience racism, it sure seems they are unjustifyingly prospering compared to their counterparts who meet the same criteria but are a different race. What's the reasoning for that? What's the reasoning other than effective institutional and systemic racism, Pideli? And where is racism against whites expressed within any of those statistics or links I have documented? I'm not trying to sound arrogant, I am just frustrated in trying to understand how on Earth anyone can say that white people experience racism on any scale? Are white people experiencing racism when they make the highest earnings out of any other racial group/minority group? Are white people experiencing racism when they earn 75% of scholarships? Are white people experiencing racism when they account for 80% of jobs? Own the majority of corporate businesses? Racism is more than just getting your feelings hurt, it is a whole system. A system that has been consistently upheld by white people. So no, I will reiterate. White people cannot experience racism. I don't even think white people can even begin to understand what it means to experience racism. End of discussion.

Thanks.

- Serena

"It all takes time"
Instructor
#78 Old 9th May 2016 at 5:47 AM
^ In the case of racism against whites, it is usually not institutionalized racism being discussed, but personal prejudice, which does not have any statistics to cite, since they are on an individual basis. Also, accusing all whites of being racist is EXTREMELY prejudiced, no matter who is saying it.
Lab Assistant
#79 Old 9th May 2016 at 3:08 PM Last edited by SerenaOhSerena : 9th May 2016 at 5:57 PM.
Quote: Originally posted by pikeman101
^ In the case of racism against whites, it is usually not institutionalized racism being discussed, but personal prejudice, which does not have any statistics to cite, since they are on an individual basis. Also, accusing all whites of being racist is EXTREMELY prejudiced, no matter who is saying it.


First of all, the point I am trying to make is that white people do not experience racism, they can however experience prejudice. Which are not synonymous. You also contradict yourself when you say "racism against whites" and then reduce it to "personal prejudice".

Second of all, racism is racism, if white people experience racism they experience it across the board like minorities, you cannot pick what type of racism you experience like it's a shopping catalog, "oh I think I'll have the systemic racism today." Not how it works. You just stated yourself, that it's "usually not institutionalized racism". If white people do not experience institutionalized racism, they do not experience racism at all.

Third of all, as I stated before racism is not personal it's structured. Let me direct you to my post.

Fourth of all, accusing someone of being "extremely prejudice" for calling out someone who is racist, for speaking dialogue on racism, or for discussing their own experiences with racism is absurd. You are not really labeling them as "extremely prejudice", you're shaming them into being quiet about important discussions that need to be had on racism and white supremacy in this country. It's the same as when minorities are shamed under the "you're playing the race card" label. Understand that when racism is discussed, you cannot use "but not all white people..." as an excuse. The fact still remains that all white people have white privilege. The same as men with male privilege. Whether they want it or not. So rather than defend themselves with "but not all white people..." work to educate and reduce the racism that is already experienced in our country.

And Fifth of all, my above post still stands. Cite your sources on the aforementioned listed and I will eat my hat.

Cheers

"It all takes time"
Instructor
#80 Old 9th May 2016 at 4:23 PM Last edited by pikeman101 : 9th May 2016 at 4:37 PM.
EDIT: I made a post, but I eventually realized that nobody's views will be swayed one way or another from this thread, so I don't really want to waste my time in a circular argument anymore. Bye!
Top Secret Researcher
#81 Old 9th May 2016 at 6:56 PM
Quote: Originally posted by SerenaOhSerena
Toning my arrogance down?

Yep. Saying stuff like "Cheers my behind, m'am. ", calling me "sweetheart", etc, is very unnecessary and quite immature. But I suppose that's how you "win" your debates because no one wants to deal with anyone like that. It is perfectly possible to conduct a debate without looking down on other people, if your arguments are strong enough to hold up on their own.

Quote: Originally posted by SerenaOhSerena
You're in Sweden and trying to tell me that you experience racism?

Well I'm experiencing it right now, from you ... Don't know what me being from Sweden has anything to do with that. As for racism irl, no I haven't personally experienced it, nor do I have to have, in order to explain to you what racism is according to definition. I would appreciate if you stuck to the arguments rather than resorting to ad hominem.

Quote: Originally posted by SerenaOhSerena
I'm not buying it.

I don't care.

Quote: Originally posted by SerenaOhSerena
Sorry but you trying to convince me that white people are marginalized is pure absurdity and you have no claims to back it up. And you most certainly cannot tell me, a black woman, a marginalized double minority, what it means to experience racism or what it means to be marginalized.

Not more absurd than you claiming all white people are racists. What's ironic is that you are marginalizing white people right now by saying their opinions are less important because they are white. Marginalize means: treat (a person, group, or concept) as insignificant or peripheral. Which is what always happens when a white person is in a debate with a SJW. I can not tell you how you experience racism but I can tell you what racism is according to definition. You being black does not give you a monopoly on this word. But okay, if we are playing the game of "who can victimize themselves more" - tell me all the legal rights that you as a black woman don't have in the Western world that a white man has, and I can tell you all the rights I as a gay guy don't have that you have Let's see who wins.

Quote: Originally posted by SerenaOhSerena
1. Definitions of Racism citation from the Clarke University's Multicultural Student Services
http://www.clarke.edu/media/files/M...onsofracism.pdf

Clarke University is a liberal arts college, not a sociology university.

liberal arts
1. areas of study (such as history, language, and literature) that are intended to give you general knowledge rather than to develop specific skills needed for a profession
2. college or university studies (as language, philosophy, literature, abstract science) intended to provide chiefly general knowledge and to develop general intellectual capacities (as reason and judgment) as opposed to professional or vocational skills

And on the very same document you linked to me, next to "Who is a racist", it says: "All white individuals in our society are racists." Allow me to question the validity of this source. This is clearly an extremist university of some sort. Not something you would use for any serious social science studies. All legitimate definitions I can find on the word "racism" still are either:

1. The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
2. The belief that one race or group of races is superior or inferior to another race or group of races.
3. Prejudice or discrimination based upon race.

Until that definition is removed from the dictionary, you simply CAN NOT say that it is wrong, no matter how strongly you feel about it. And you can not say yours is a real definition until it reaches the dictionary. Yes, anyone regardless of race can be racist, by definition. I don't need to say anything else. As for examples of racism against whites - all you need to do is read the pdf you submitted. "All whites are racist" is in and of itself a racist statement. And things like these are far too common now with the rise of SJW-movements. Racism against whites is now the only form of racism that is acceptable in society, due to the idea of white guilt, that white people deserve it because of history. Which is bullshit. None of us can help history. Racism is still unfair no matter where it comes from. I myself have not experienced racism irl (yet!), that doesn't mean I'm going to say it isn't real. Others have. And they can safely use the actual definition of racism to accurately describe what they experienced.

This is also why I'm not going to respond to the rest of this post asking me to find examples of racism against whites that coincide with your definition. It's irrelevant. You are going off on a tangent. All I have to do is to state the current official definition, and you have already given me plenty of examples of racism against whites that coincide with the actual definition so that part of the job is also done.
Lab Assistant
#82 Old 10th May 2016 at 10:05 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Pideli
Yep. Saying stuff like "Cheers my behind, m'am. ", calling me "sweetheart", etc, is very unnecessary and quite immature. But I suppose that's how you "win" your debates because no one wants to deal with anyone like that. It is perfectly possible to conduct a debate without looking down on other people, if your arguments are strong enough to hold up on their own.


That's not me looking down on anyway, I'll leave this to personal offense. Wasn't my intention so I will be the bigger person and apologize for any offense. I do come off as a bit more scathing than I intend to during debates.

Quote: Originally posted by Pideli
Well I'm experiencing it right now, from you ... Don't know what me being from Sweden has anything to do with that. As for racism irl, no I haven't personally experienced it, nor do I have to have, in order to explain to you what racism is according to definition. I would appreciate if you stuck to the arguments rather than resorting to ad hominem.


You being from Sweden, a European country, with the majority being European. And then saying racism exists against whites. Me discussing racism is you experiencing racism? That's oxymoronic. You're not experiencing racism. And it is clear from this statement that you have no idea what it means to experience racism.
Furthermore, the fact that you have not experienced racism in real life further proves my point. Minorities experience racism on a systemic scale in everyday life, micro aggression, etc. You do not experience racism. And it's likely you never will. Same goes for all white people.

Quote: Originally posted by Pideli
Not more absurd than you claiming all white people are racists. What's ironic is that you are marginalizing white people right now by saying their opinions are less important because they are white. Marginalize means: treat (a person, group, or concept) as insignificant or peripheral. Which is what always happens when a white person is in a debate with a SJW. I can not tell you how you experience racism but I can tell you what racism is according to definition. You being black does not give you a monopoly on this word. But okay, if we are playing the game of "who can victimize themselves more" - tell me all the legal rights that you as a black woman don't have in the Western world that a white man has, and I can tell you all the rights I as a gay guy don't have that you have Let's see who wins.


Please tell me all of the rights that you as a white gay male do not have that I do. I am dying to know. There's an underlying issue in this post, that I should have pointed out from a previous poster. Nowhere in my argument did I state all white people were racist. You're taking personal offense. And again, "not all white people" is not an excuse for the sake of any form of debating. Also, you're not being marginalized. White people can't be marginalized.

Nowhere did I state that white people's opinions are less important. Again. Taking personal offense. That's the issue when it comes to minorities sharing dialogue or educating the non-marginalized majority (white people). We always have to be respectful and courteous (respectability politics) when speaking on our experiences as a black minority or else we are reduced to being the angry black woman who is attacking an "innocent white person".

What I did say, was that white people will never understand what it means to experience racism. You can review the textbook definitions all you want. All that you can do is educate yourself on racism but you will never experience it, thus creating a huge difference in your opinion on the matter over a person who actually experiences it day by day, generation by generation. You're not "insignificant" (again, stated this nowhere), however, neither you or any other non-marginalized person can tell a minority what it means to experience racism. This I have reiterated a 3rd and final time.

Quote: Originally posted by Pideli
You being black does not give you a monopoly on this word. But okay, if we are playing the game of "who can victimize themselves more" - tell me all the legal rights that you as a black woman don't have in the Western world that a white man has, and I can tell you all the rights I as a gay guy don't have that you have Let's see who wins.

No victims here, just facts and statistics. Tell you all the legal rights that black women don't have over white men? You're kidding? Did you not look at the charts I have already posted Here let me get an answer for this. Here we have a chart for Unemployment Rates based on Race and Education, so why is it then that having met the same criteria within each of these ranges of education are black people still less likely for employment? Where's racism expressed for white people virtually anywhere on this chart? I would like a specific answer as to why the unemployment rate is still high for black people who meet the same criteria? And if white people experience racism how they are still thriving over said minority?



Gay white male? Congrats, you being a cisgender white gay male still does not make you marginalized. As a matter of fact, gay white cis men are at the forefront of the LGBT community. And I can go into a whole lot about how gay white cis men can do better for our community, but this is not the point of the debate. You as a gay male has no comparison over being a black woman. Understand that black people exist within the LGBT community as well. It's not just white gay men. There's black gay men, black gay women, hispanic gay, etc. And I can tell you right now, that white gay men do not experience anywhere near the ramifications of an LGBT person of color. But nice try.
Quote: Originally posted by Pideli
Clarke University is a liberal arts college, not a sociology university.

liberal arts
1. areas of study (such as history, language, and literature) that are intended to give you general knowledge rather than to develop specific skills needed for a profession
2. college or university studies (as language, philosophy, literature, abstract science) intended to provide chiefly general knowledge and to develop general intellectual capacities (as reason and judgment) as opposed to professional or vocational skills.

What's your point? This has nothing to do with Clarke's ability to write a heavily cited article on racism.
Quote: Originally posted by Pideli
And on the very same document you linked to me, next to "Who is a racist", it says: "All white individuals in our society are racists." Allow me to question the validity of this source. This is clearly an extremist university of some sort. Not something you would use for any serious social science studies. All legitimate definitions I can find on the word "racism" still are either:

1. The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
2. The belief that one race or group of races is superior or inferior to another race or group of races.
3. Prejudice or discrimination based upon race.

Until that definition is removed from the dictionary, you simply CAN NOT say that it is wrong, no matter how strongly you feel about it. And you can not say yours is a real definition until it reaches the dictionary. Yes, anyone regardless of race can be racist, by definition. I don't need to say anything else. As for examples of racism against whites - all you need to do is read the pdf you submitted. "All whites are racist" is in and of itself a racist statement. And things like these are far too common now with the rise of SJW-movements. Racism against whites is now the only form of racism that is acceptable in society, due to the idea of white guilt, that white people deserve it because of history. Which is bullshit. None of us can help history. Racism is still unfair no matter where it comes from. I myself have not experienced racism irl (yet!), that doesn't mean I'm going to say it isn't real. Others have. And they can safely use the actual definition of racism to accurately describe what they experienced.

This is also why I'm not going to respond to the rest of this post asking me to find examples of racism against whites that coincide with your definition. It's irrelevant. You are going off on a tangent. All I have to do is to state the current official definition, and you have already given me plenty of examples of racism against whites that coincide with the actual definition so that part of the job is also done.

As I've stated before, you can read the definition of racism until your eyes bleed, you still will not experience it. There's a difference between being educated on racism and experiencing it. None of those links state "all white people are racists" again you're taking personal offense and overdramitizing, but it's not suprising, I suppose.
Harvard and Yale are not extremist universities. Top Ivy Leage colleges actually.
Racism against whites is not the only form of racism acceptable in our society because racism against whites does not exist. You're not going to respond to my post asking for examples, which I didn't expect that you would, because they do not exist across any board, thus proving my point.


You say I'm reaching, but all I have done is list facts and citations after facts and citations. You as of yet, have not listed none. Fact still remains white people are more likely to be employed, are more likely to get scholarships, are less likley to go to prison, the list can literally go on. I am however, getting bored with this debate. I am just repeating the same facts, and my apathy is growing. So I'm going to leave this open ended, great debating, peace.

"It all takes time"
Top Secret Researcher
#83 Old 11th May 2016 at 10:53 PM
No matter what I tell you, it goes in one ear and out the other. It's like playing "Yes!", "No!", "Yes!", "No!" with you.
Top Secret Researcher
#84 Old 12th May 2016 at 11:08 AM
Quote: Originally posted by SerenaOhSerena
You do not experience racism. And it's likely you never will. Same goes for all white people.


Are you referring to white people in your country or all white people on the planet?

I wouldn't put a lot of effort into getting it transported.
Theorist
#85 Old 12th May 2016 at 4:50 PM Last edited by Mistermook : 12th May 2016 at 9:00 PM.
Quote: Originally posted by simbalena
Are you referring to white people in your country or all white people on the planet?


Presumably it's all whites - everywhere, forever. There's probably a link somewhere proving only white people have the genes for being rich and empowered, right?
Top Secret Researcher
#86 Old 12th May 2016 at 10:52 PM
I think this girl put it perfectly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvJsYgzg4Jw

"There's no way you're racist because of 'power + privilege' and all the other justifications SJW:s have to make it so black people can say whatever the fuck they want about white people but it's not racist."
Theorist
#87 Old 13th May 2016 at 6:56 PM
Just so we're clear: Serena's debate issues were that she emoted herself into illogical stereotypes and conclusions, not that she was standing up for herself or that she doesn't have every right to be fucking pissed off about the state of the world. She was right about her entire argument except her rather expansive declarations that ignored both common sense and history (not to mention some really choice nonsense with insisting on specific definitions not supported by the dictionary.) SJW isn't a negative thing, and PC isn't really a negative thing. I'll take the "SJW" folks any day over the sort of folks who imply that SJW is somehow a pejorative. Fighting for a better world isn't a bad thing, and when you start suggesting that it is I have to wonder what sort of world you're actually in favor of.
Top Secret Researcher
#88 Old 13th May 2016 at 9:05 PM
SJW:s aren't fighting for a better world, they think they are. But what they're really promoting is a world where you have to walk on eggshells, censorship, racism against whites and sexism against men. They are also basing their world view on emotions rather than facts, and they aren't receptive to criticism.
A taste of the future?
Those are the kind of extreme people we're talking about when we say SJW, and it is a negative thing.
Theorist
#89 Old 13th May 2016 at 10:20 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Pideli
SJW:s aren't fighting for a better world, they think they are.


Thanks for taking the time to mansplain that to everyone, but you're wrong.
Instructor
#90 Old 14th May 2016 at 6:24 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Mistermook
Thanks for taking the time to mansplain that to everyone, but you're wrong.


The term "Social Justice Warrior" is a derogation, so Pideli is right in that sense. See: Oxford Dictionary. There is a clear distinction between a social justice warrior and an advocate of social justice; the warrior archetype will attack those who disagree with them on a personal level, typically base their arguments on opinion instead of fact, and do not accept any form of criticism; social justice advocates, on the other hand, truly want to discuss important issues from a practical standpoint. This is why Serena is being called an SJW (and I'd have to agree).
Top Secret Researcher
#91 Old 14th May 2016 at 6:36 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Mistermook
Thanks for taking the time to mansplain that to everyone, but you're wrong.

Lol, well, no wonder you take the SJW-side, you are one. o.O The term "mansplaining" is a derogatory term used as a means to try to devalue the opponent's argument right from the get-go without the need to actually address it. How about telling me why I'm wrong? "Because you're a man" isn't an argument.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKAgYvPDxO4
Theorist
#92 Old 15th May 2016 at 3:19 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Pideli
he term "mansplaining" is a derogatory term used as a means to try to devalue the opponent's argument right from the get-go without the need to actually address it.


Presumably that would be like calling someone a "SJW" right? Or presenting me as "one of them?"
Top Secret Researcher
#93 Old 15th May 2016 at 3:59 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Mistermook
Presumably that would be like calling someone a "SJW" right? Or presenting me as "one of them?"

Nope, because what you're doing is dismissing me right off the bat, without criticizing me or letting me defend myself - that's what calling something "splaining" is used for. Calling you an SJW is vastly different, I'm not doing that to try to silence you, rather the opposite. I called you an SJW because you aren't open to criticism, use the same misandrist rhetoric as they do and already expressed you agree with them more than someone who says it's a bad thing. You aren't presenting any basis for your claim that I'm wrong, you still haven't said why. I'm presenting a basis why I thought you are an SJW. So... no.

Quote: Originally posted by Mistermook
I'll take the "SJW" folks any day over the sort of folks who imply that SJW is somehow a pejorative.
Theorist
#94 Old 16th May 2016 at 4:22 PM
You aren't defending yourself? How did I manage to "not let you" do that?
Top Secret Researcher
#95 Old 16th May 2016 at 11:41 PM
By saying I'm wrong without telling me why I'm wrong.
Lab Assistant
#96 Old 3rd Jun 2016 at 10:28 PM Last edited by stupidname : 4th Jun 2016 at 3:59 AM. Reason: Apology
Simple answer: NOPE

EDIT::
Quote: Originally posted by pikeman101
Really? This logic-deprived flame war was over and you had to bring it back?


I apologize for reviving the thread. I posted impulsively and did not look to see how old this thread was.
Instructor
#97 Old 4th Jun 2016 at 3:18 AM
Quote: Originally posted by stupidname
Simple answer: NOPE


Really? This logic-deprived flame war was over and you had to bring it back?
Theorist
#98 Old 4th Jun 2016 at 4:15 PM
Quote: Originally posted by pikeman101
Really? This logic-deprived flame war was over and you had to bring it back?


What? Again, is someone holding you down and making you do something? It's not that old, and even you didn't start into the discussion until months after the original post... It's not like some days where people roll through the OT/Debate and start replying to six year old threads with everyone in the discussion half onto greener pastures.
Scholar
#99 Old 5th Jun 2016 at 8:27 PM
This topic always seems to come up in forums. I don't mind any disagreement but I firmly believe this and I do think it is supported. Racism is associated with power, white people have power, no need to argue its true and is statistically proven regardless of ones individual characteristics, behavior, etc. and so they can be racist (depending on the area of the world). Anyone who does not have the power to oppress but uses racially driven hateful language or actions against those in power is being DISCRIMINATORY and PREJUDICE. It's the same thing without the power aspect.

Common example: If a racist white person calls a black person a criminal (with no evidence) this black person is more likely to suffer from loss of opportunity and it spreads an already widespread stereotype, if a racist black person calls a white person a criminal (with no evidence) the white person is less likely to suffer from a loss of opportunity and let's be honest, white society tends to dodge those kind of stereotypes through euphemisms and all kinds of sketchy language.

Therefore, racist white people demonstrate racism while non-white racists demonstrate prejudice and discrimination. This context applies mostly to America and areas around the world that have become westernized. Of course the tables change in some countries.

White people aren't entirely to blame. Racism has been bred into western society by the media, government, and racists in power for generations and I always take that into consideration.

I HOPE THIS HELPS FOR ANYONE WANTING AN UNBIASED LOGIC BASED OPINION. Its always helped me stay calm in topics like this one.

NO ONE RACE IS ENTIRELY ANYTHING. ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT.

p.s. Things make better sense in my head so idk if this makes complete sense but I at least hope people understand what I'm trying to say. These topics always tend to breed hatred from misunderstanding anyway so I don't mind questions.
Test Subject
#100 Old 15th Jun 2016 at 9:48 AM
Its not my intention to single you out, pretenshus, as I have seen this sentiment all over but there are two statements that I have to disagree with. I do agree, that its very likely the majority of people with this thinking are speaking as minorities in the counties where they live and that more black people have suffered racism than white. Having said that, this logic is, imo, dangerous.
Firstly,
Quote: Originally posted by pretenshus
Racism is associated with power, white people have power, no need to argue its true and is statistically proven regardless of ones individual characteristics, behavior, etc. and so they can be racist (depending on the area of the world). Anyone who does not have the power to oppress but uses racially driven hateful language or actions against those in power is being DISCRIMINATORY and PREJUDICE. It's the same thing without the power aspect.

It is not a power thing at all, acts of racism are not connected to who holds the power at any given time. I am African and live in an African country ruled by a black government and white people are very much in the minority, does that mean that any act of racism by a white person in my country is simply discrimination and/or prejudice? So now after apartheid those who may still hold onto that way of thinking are no longer racist but rather discriminatory and prejudiced? You said "depending on the area of the world". Are there double standards for different countries in this thinking?
Secondly
Quote: Originally posted by pretenshus
Therefore, racist white people demonstrate racism while non-white racists demonstrate prejudice and discrimination. This context applies mostly to America and areas around the world that have become westernized. Of course the tables change in some countries.
Words and actions as ugly as racism should never be called by anything other than what they truly are, regardless of who is at fault and what our past experiences have been (or if we live in America). I grew up under an apartheid government who dictated who we could be friends with, who we could love and that we are all 'different' and therefore should be separate. It took ALL people of ALL races to change that, and the only way that could happen was for everyone to see the situation for the ugly thing it was and give it its proper name, racism, and not 'separation', 'population control' or any other euphemism made up by people attempting to justify unjust actions. People of ALL races lost their lives whilst bringing about change and people of ALL races committed horrific crimes motivated purely by racial hatred. All people are capable of hatred and intolerance which, simply put, is the very essence of what racism is all about. The minute we sugar-coat something as serious as racism we are in danger of giving people the impression that their actions are not that bad or even justified.

The very definition of racism is discrimination and prejudice!! (Oxford English Dictionary)
RACISM- Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.

To quote the words of someone who lost 27 years of his life to racism,
I detest racialism, because I regard it as a barbaric thing, whether it comes from a black man or a white man.
Nelson Mandela

Quote: Originally posted by pretenshus
while non-white racists
You, yourself, referred to non-whites as 'racists', possibly because there is simply no other word to describe someone who is prejudiced and discriminatory against another because of race?
 
Page 4 of 6
Back to top