-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Can you be racist towards white people?
- Thread starter swimming
- Start date
- Status
On an individual level, but that's a sub atomic scale compared to systemic racism that other groups face. This is broad, of course. There's historical exceptions based on more ethnic lines like Jewish people.
Yeah you can't tell the truth you have to coddle and treat racists like theyre in diapers oh wait
Is vice versa acceptable then? Let say a white person has been robbed/raped/abused is it OK to distrust black people then?
If not acceptable, why? What is the difference? Since it is personal anecdotes.
i mean, if you want to discuss a different word, or come up with a new one to convey the problem that you're describing then by all means. but the premise of the thread is talking about "racism", which is a word with an accepted definition that is similarly detailed in every reputable dictionary.
A black person (or their family/community) being harmed by white people is NOT a personal anecdote, it's a centuries-long universal political, geographical, cultural, social, institutional, international phenomenon.
White supremacy is not fucking anecdotal. Don't be daft.
Definitely, because, as history shows, the skin colour is the only pre-requisite to experience racism, because blonde, blue-eyed Ashkenazi Jews weren't treated badly by Germans back in the 30s.
Hint: the feeling of otherness and alienation doesn't always come from the prejudice against one's skin tone, the cultural background is just as big of a stimulus. Therefore your weakass argument is moot.
Yes you can. Interpersonal racism involves stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination. A white person could be subject to any of those things. Does it have a significant impact on their lives and prospects for success? Not generally, no. That doesn't make it not racism, it just makes it not very important in the grand scheme.
Institutional racism is where the power component comes in and even intersects with interpersonal racism. Racism against whites doesn't really matter in the end because of the institutional power structure that favours the white majority.
Nonetheless, I can make pre-judgments about a person because they appear white, I can decide I don't like them without knowing them. That's textbook racism.
I'm not saying this to say "please think of the white people too!" but rather to advocate for an analytic breakdown of racism that includes both the interpersonal and institutional facets rather than erasing elements or collapsing the definition in a way that loses detail.
Racial prejudice is a common definition of racism. Words can have many meanings.
Basically. Without the distinction you can be asking completely different questions depending on the interpretation.
I'm not in the know on this. Are those guys some famous racists?Yeah you can't tell the truth you have to coddle and treat racists like theyre in diapers oh wait
I mean, if the majority of white people got robbed almost daily by black people then we could start talking about the resentment and distrust caused by systemic black robbery.
Is slavery, taking land, systematic racism, cultural racism, being killer by cops, getting paid less, etc etc all one white person?
One person doing something fucked up is different then a history of 100'000's or probably millions doing shit.
no
The Frequency in which it's experienced on a day to day basis
Turning Point
Description: Using a dictionary's limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning. This is a fallacy because dictionaries don't reason; they simply are a reflection of an abbreviated version of the current accepted usage of a term, as determined by argumentation and eventual acceptance. In short, dictionaries tell you what a word meant, according to the authors, at the time of its writing, not what it meant before that time, after, or what it should mean.
Dictionary meanings are usually concise, and lack the depth found in an encyclopedia; therefore, terms found in dictionaries are often incomplete when it comes to helping people to gain a full understanding of the term.
Ok, I get the point better when laid out like that.
Another example then, based on a Swedish report back to around 01-02 I believe, which shown that immigrants was more prone to rape if the ethnicity was based on MENA countries, is it then acceptable to not trust people of said ethnicity if you are a women?
Personally I think it is idiotic to do so since it is such a small % and you should always try to be inclusive and open minded.
To preface, I might be far off here since I am not PoC or minority but a white priveleged person, just to make that clear.
EDIT: After posting, my comparison is not really accurate.
Another example then, based on a Swedish report back to around 01-02 I believe, which shown that immigrants was more prone to rape if the ethnicity was based on MENA countries, is it then acceptable to not trust people of said ethnicity if you are a women?
Personally I think it is idiotic to do so since it is such a small % and you should always try to be inclusive and open minded.
To preface, I might be far off here since I am not PoC or minority but a white priveleged person, just to make that clear.
EDIT: After posting, my comparison is not really accurate.
All of those ethnic groups are not necessarily completely Caucasian.
As far as I'm concerned you have to be either from the North Caucasus or from Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan to be completely Caucasian.
I don't think anyone is arguing that racism only means racial prejudice, though.
Any race can suffer racism, wherever they are, whether they're a national minority or not.
It's kind of stupid to suggest otherwise.
It's kind of stupid to suggest otherwise.
That is among the worst ways I've ever seen someone start off an ignorant statement...
You can 100% be racist toward white people and there are absolutely situations where white people have been looked down upon as an inferior race and faced genuine hardships and horrors for it. Not everything related to racism is in reference to the US...
Yes, of course. But at the end of the day I can shrug it off and go home without being pulled over or the fear of being shot by the police.
Basically, the impact of racism against whites isn't as deep as with other races.
Basically, the impact of racism against whites isn't as deep as with other races.
You're trying to conflate what happened in Srebrenica as the same as the systemic racism people of color experience everyday in most parts of the world for centuries. You're trying to create false equivalences in order to legitimate the asinine argument that white people can suffer from racism based on their skin color, which they do not. Blonde blue-eyed Ashkenazi Jews weren't discriminated based on their skin color, ONCE AGAIN.
You can make the argument that white people can suffer racism through differences of religions, local ethnicities or even nationalities and I will agree (and as a European, I very much know how national stereotyping can lead to dangerous prejudices, and how many local ethnicities and religions existing in such a tiny continent has led to wars & massacres). But that can't be equated to the systemic racial oppression people of color have endured for several centuries now. But that was not the point you were trying to make, were you? Can we talk about how a white Muslim Bosnian will still have no problem whatsoever circulating the whole of Europe (and even the wholeass world) without suffering from racial profiling not even once? Can we talk about how that white Bosnian Muslim will be able to find a job easily, profiting from white privilege, whereas POC would be profiled as soon as people saw their faces? Can we even talk about how that same white Bosnian Muslim will be able to find a job in much MUCH easier ways than, say, an Arabic or Black Muslim? Same for that Blonde blue-eyed Ashkenazi Jew, for that matter.
Because that's the topic at hand here, and I don't understand why you keep derailing it with false equivalences. It makes as much sense to me as people quoting the Rwandan genocide to make the dumb argument that black people are as oppressing as white people.
Last edited:
What?
Anthropologically you're wrong, so wrong
You do realize that Iranians (Persians) are just as Caucasian as Anglo-Saxons, right?
User banned (1 week): trolling; unnecessary and inflammatory metacommentary in a sensitive thread
This forum is so scared to call out the fact that PoC can be just as racists as white people.
And this remark right here is why just saying yes of course to this question is utterly facile and useless
as another poster pointed out, racism is a highly conflated term but the definitions in dictionaries hold up just fine. the example in that article you linked has two people arguing about expanding upon the definition of gay marriage, and if this thread were about expanding the definition of racism then i obviously wouldn't use the definition of the word as a counterpoint to why it's definition could not be expanded. if you want to discuss to what extent minorities are able to prevent the upward mobility of white people then that would probably be a separate thread worth having. but if that were the intent of this thread then "can people be racist to white people" is a poor way to phrase that question considering that most people will be working off of the accepted/common definition.
also, the appeal to definition fallacy described in that link isn't making the argument that using definitions as guidelines or parameters for a debate is bad. it's just pointing out that dictionaries are meant for concise and simple definitions, and if someone wanted to expand, or provide a contradictory definition, they can't be discredited because the word already has a definition. definitions can change and be amended to, and words can have many meanings, but that's not what this thread was about. the op wasn't making any arguments about the definition of racism so the fallacy doesn't apply here.
Basically this. Hate is hate, and it would be awful if a white person is shot for their skin tone as it would be bad with any other solely targeted for the same reason; stuff of this level (Im basically talking hate crimes) is always an appalling act.
The likelihood, however, seems to occur frequently less than where the issue seems to happen the other way around -- and not just through violence but through systematic barriers or less overt forms of racism (i.e.; talking down, constantly passing over PoCs, verbal harassment, any "[insert innocuous act] while black" stuff) and takes on a different look within a historical context.
you can tell this guy just wanted an excuse to express his diaper fetishYeah you can't tell the truth you have to coddle and treat racists like theyre in diapers oh wait
Yea, I agree with this. You can divide racism into components, and there is a personal component where you can be racist against White people, like all other races.
Your post highlights that it is the power imbalance that causes it to not be symmetric, and why racism can be so bad. So to me, the power imbalance should go hand in hand with the term racism, and we should just refer to interpersonal racism as prejudice.
That's a fair point, I do feel like there are overlapping conversations happening here and the OP as stated doesn't do much good to make meaningful distinctions
Uh
And yet people don't argue "well not all northern Germanic descent people!". And when filling out a form The options are only Caucasian or white. Not Irish, not Italian, not German. White.
A lot of people in here playing the disingenuous semantics game.
Last edited:
I'm not trying to conflate anything, white Americans might not experience systemic racism, but if you're denying systemic oppression of Bosniaks during Yugoslav Wars or prejudice against white Eastern European immigrants in Western Europe (not comparable to systemic racism, but racism nonetheless) then you're indulging in pedantry and arguing semantics.
I can't talk about Bosniaks, but I can talk about my experience as a North Caucasian in Russia, *drum roll* Nigerian immigrant in Moscow will find job, apartments to rent faster and will have an easier time with cops than me. Period. Don't believe me? Ask Africans who live in Russia. Now, I recognize that Caucasus and Russia have a history that makes our relationships "unique" so to speak and it doesn't reflect the societal structure of entire Europe, but that doesn't have any bearings on the OP's question.
What's next, are you going to tell me that Islamophobia and anti-semitism aren't part of racism?
You can be prejudice but not racist towards white people. Racism is dependent on one group exerting their power over another.
I'm just Mexican and have to put up with racist jokes but apparently white people have suffered worse?
People are doing that. So many posts in this thread are willfully distinguishing systemic racism from racism.
Yes. Also Minorities face it everywhere. In recent history non whites have been more oppressed but people forget just go back 700 years and asians were the most powerful countries in the world. Currently its worse against non whites and whites are in a better position but yes you definitely can be and it exists even today. Im very surprised by some of the no posts.
Last edited:
I too would also like an explanation as to how anyone can strip away the historical precedence of oppression against native Africans via white supremacy, resulting in the modern sociopolitical climates within those countries, just to push some false equivocation that their justifiable apprehension BACKED by said historical precedence is at all the same as proactive racism.
In more simpler terms: Do you honestly think the plight of white Liberians would even be a thing NOW if native Liberians weren't subjugated and pillaged for CENTURIES by white supremacy prior?
This is the dictionary definition for Gender:
either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.
This definition falls apart completely when discussing transpeople, intersex, and genderqueer people. It starts you out with an understanding but it doesn't go into the detail necessary. A dictionary shouldn't be the end all be all understanding of complex and nuances concepts.
- Status