This.any group, ethnicity, religious group, race can be racist towards another.... it's all about HATE, FEAR and DISTRUST.
so to answer OP, Yes
Yeah you can't tell the truth you have to coddle and treat racists like theyre in diapers oh waitI try to, but it's not easy.
j/k and yeah of course. Denying this just gives amno to racists.
Nope, you clearly aren't getting it. If a poc chooses not to trust or like a white person because how they have been treated by white people is not racism.
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.I hesitate to distill such a large scale concept to what Webster's says racism definitively is.
So what opportunities or upward momentum has she prevented white people from having by having prejudiced thoughts? It's gross, I agree, but I guess we just disagree on the overall definition.
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.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.
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.You keep on quoting this word as a remotely valid counter-argument but I believe you have no idea what were the true motivations of genocide. Hint: it was not about skin color, it was not about whiteness. 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.Basically this is what I subscribe to. You cannot separate racism from power because it is always about power.
Racial prejudice is a common definition of racism. Words can have many meanings.Some of you guys need to get some education. You can't be racist to white people. It seems that people are mixing up racism and prejudice.
This is one example where splitting the highly conflated term "racism" into "racial resentment" and "systemic discrimination and oppression" is helpful. And basically answers the question.
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 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.
Is slavery, taking land, systematic racism, cultural racism, being killer by cops, getting paid less, etc etc all one white person?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.
no
The Frequency in which it's experienced on a day to day basisIf not acceptable, why? What is the difference? Since it is personal anecdotes.
Turning PointI'm not in the know on this. Are those guys some famous racists?
All of those ethnic groups are not necessarily completely Caucasian.Yes, there's types of white that suffers racism, jews, arabs, slavics, italians, gypsies etc
"Caucasian" is a hilariously American classification.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.All of those ethnic groups are not necessarily completely Caucasian.
I don't think anyone is arguing that racism only means racial prejudice, though.
Description: Using a dictionary's limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning.
That is among the worst ways I've ever seen someone start off an ignorant statement...
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.
What?All of those ethnic groups are not necessarily completely Caucasian.
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.
Oh, please elaborateThis forum is so scared to call out the fact that PoC can be just as racists as white people.
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.
This forum is so scared to call out the fact that PoC can be just as racists as white people.
Says the dude who brought out the dictionary...
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.
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.
Thats not a dictionary
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.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.
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.
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 distinctionsas 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.
Uh
There isn't one. In the United States, white people and their culture can probably be defined by some combination of their ancestry to whatever country they came from and the region in the United States they live in. There isn't one homogeneous white culture though.
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.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.
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.Can we talk about how a white Muslim Bosnian will still have no problem whatsoever circulating the whole of Europe without suffering from racial profiling not even once? Can we talk about how that white Muslim Bosnian 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.
People are doing that. So many posts in this thread are willfully distinguishing systemic racism from racism.I don't think anyone is arguing that racism only means racial prejudice, though.
I'm just Mexican and have to put up with racist jokes but apparently white people have suffered worse?
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.I'd like to hear how literally being unable to become a citizen for being white in a country is not racist by the power definition.
That said, for practically everyone in the West, helping PoC is of several orders of magnitude greater importance than white Liberians. I stated it as a technicality, not as some sort of attempted retort against the power + prejudice definition.
This is the dictionary definition for Gender: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.