Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First, this is not my definition. This definition has been created and widely agreed upon by certain groups of people (scientist, anti -racist groups, equal rights group, etc. including the UN). You can find varying definitions but it all comes down to the same meaning. Secondly, no where does it say (directly or indirectly) that it is perfectly acceptable for all blacks to hate whites and go out of their way to discriminate against them until both are just discriminating equally. This definition in a sense, forces certain groups of people to recognize that they have many unearned privileges. And that these privileges are embedded deeply in their society. B/c of this privilege they can never experience discrimination on the same level as a minority. That is all that this definition does.
The definition you support has NOT been agreed upon by the UN, and I challenge you to find a single UN document that uses it. No where will you ever find the "deeply rooted historical..." clause that I dispute. Outside of that australian example, I've yet to find any organization that ever ties their definition of racism to a historical policy.
The flaw is that definition argues that it's not racism for people to discriminate unless they're on top. Your argument is that because whites have not suffered as much, it's not racist for a minority to discriminate. My argument is that a racially motivated discrimination is racism regardless of which direction it is targeted.
Yes, overall I completely agree that blacks are on the receiving end of a lot more racism than whites. That does not negate the fact that both sides are capable of racially motivated discrimination, which by most definitions(as you previously agreed) is considered racism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbf2324
This is such an irrational and hysterical scenario. This scenario reflects how scared certain people can be when their privilege is been shared or level out. Things in this country are only getting better. Yes, it still sucks to be a minority in the U.S. and they still have to struggle. But their has been progress, slow progress, but progress none the less. Do you really believe that the majority of Whites, Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, etc. hold so much hate in their hearts towards other races that they are ready to commit violent acts towards one another???(1)
[...] Yes, there will be blacks who only hire blacks, Hispanics who only Hispanics, so on an so forth but there is no way to prove this is the case the majority of the time or even a 25% of the time. There is just no way to prove that this is a phenomenon that is displacing white employees.(2) In fact most data still supports the opposite of this. http://politicalblindspot.com/study-finds-white-americans-believe-they-experience-more-racism-than-african-americans/
1)Why do you think things are getting better? Do you think it's because people view it acceptable to racially discriminate against whites and that's counter balancing the world? Or do you think it's because the majority of people view that ALL racial discrimination is wrong, regardless of who it's directed at? The definition you support has nothing to do with the advances made. A level playing field is not compatible with your belief that certain discrimination is acceptable when directed at certain races. I don't believe most people hold that much hatred and I also don't believe most people accept your definition of racism.
2) And again we come back to this same issue. Why does how bad someone is affected matter in terms of determining whether a certain action is racist? As I pointed out in my post above, if you shoot me and I shoot you twice, we've still both shot and hurt each other. The fact that I've hurt you more does not negate the pain you've caused me. Yes, I'm twice as bad for causing you twice the pain, but there is fault on your side as well. The real answer is that neither one of us should be shooting the other, hence no race should be racially discriminatory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbf2324
This is such a common misconception. We are not all standing at the same starting line.(3)To expect everyone to not complain that they have to reach the finish line with in a time regardless as to where they are standing is wrong.
[...]
Again, since privilege is automatic, having it does not make someone a bad person. The problem lies when someone w/ certain privileges made unconsidered and erroneous assumptions that their advantages are shared by everyone else. That is what we are doing when we say things like treat everyone equally, despite systematic oppression(4).
3) It's an unfortunate reality of the world, but even if all racism, sexism, and every other type of -ism/-phobia were eliminated, people will never all be at the same starting line. It shouldn't necessarily be the goal to eliminate that. If you an I are on exactly equal footing today in every imaginable sense of the word, and I save all the money I make to give to my child while you spend yours enjoying your life, my child will have a head start financially over your child. That has nothing to do with discrimination or anything else along those lines. Hence, the starting line isn't something to focus on. There are minority children who start off in a better position in life than some white, male, heterosexual children. The problem isn't the starting line, it's the resistance during the race. The minority child will currently experience a tougher journey than a white child in the same starting position. Regardless, this is a topic for another thread about what to do about racism.
4) I've never made that claim, and this line of thinking is what's taking this off topic. Yes, racism still exists and systematic oppression is something to be dealt with where is exists. It does not excuse racial discrimination by minorities as being non-racist though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbf2324
Yes, exactly that, kind of. The problem is if you accept the dictionary definition of racism then we can answer the original question asked on this thread with; Yes, minorities can be racist. But if you accept the power + prejudice definition of racism then No, minorities cannot be racist. The problem is should we as a nation accept the former or latter the definition of racism?
I'm really at a loss here. Why do you keep using that abbreviated version of the definition and then arguing based on another one. I have no problem with the definition in bold. As I've said in just about every recent post, the problem is with the extra clause you keep dropping off("deeply rooted HISTORICAL, social, cultural and power inequalities in society").
Take a scenario:
1) A manager is black, the job candidate is white. That manager has power. They have the power to determine if the candidate gets a job or you doesn't. You can say it's minor is the overall picture, but the fact still remains that in this scenario, the manager has power over the white candidate.
2) The manager doesn't like white people and refuses to hire them. That manager is prejudiced.
Given 1 and 2, the black manager is racist because power + prejudice = racism. There's no need to involve system racism to determine if an individual's actions are racist.
Last edited by Jeo123; 05-27-2014 at 08:58 AM..
Reason: Edited to shorten quotes
Of course. Just because one group, as a whole, can be more racist than another group, as a whole (and is), does not negate the fact that individual members of either group CAN indeed be racist.
I'm really at a loss here. Why do you keep using that abbreviated version of the definition and then arguing based on another one. I have no problem with the definition in bold. As I've said in just about every recent post, the problem is with the extra clause you keep dropping off("deeply rooted
HISTORICAL, social, cultural and power inequalities in society").
Power + Prejudice = racism is exactly that an abbreviated version of a detailed definition. You would never find an equation written in a dictionary as a definition. It is an equation originally created in the 70's to just make it easier to visualize the actual detailed definition. If you read the book that it was written in, the author goes into detail explaining how social, cultural, economic, political, educational, etc. inequalities are all necessary in the definition of racism so whites in America cannot experience it. Since their is no "official" version of this definition written in any English dictionaries (though there are some in sociological dictionaries) many scholars, activists, researchers, human rights groups, etc. choose to write their own definition in their own words. But it almost always has the same meaning. I have never encountered one that doesn't. The same way if you look into the Webster dictionary for the definition of racism it will be written differently from the Oxford dictionary, Collins English Dictionary, and Random House Dictionary; but it all has the same meaning. Some of these definitions may actually include the word power in their definitions
The power + prejudice = racism is the United Nations definition of racism and the Au's HREO and so many other institutions.
Power + Prejudice = racism is not a definition its an equation used to explain the definition. You would never find a definition in a dictionary written in the format of an equation. The equation become popular b/c that is how the writer of the definition tried to explain it to make it easier for others to understand. If you read her book she talks about social, cultural,economic and power inequalities and how that is necessary pat of racism. Since this version of racism is not "official" in any English Dictionary (there are some in sociological dictionaries). Many scholars just write their version of power + prejudice in their own words. Almost all definitions say the exact same thing just in different formats. For example how the un defined racism was really not much different how the Au Human Rights and Equal opportunity commission defined it. If you see Canada's definition or Britain's its almost no different. If you look further into the study of Wildman and Davis' white privilege it is almost the exact same as the UN and AU HREO commission's definition. There is virtually no difference. Historical roots is usually implied but not all the times. Mainly b/c it usually takes history to create one race with power/privilege. So we can choose to opt that part out. But when this definition is speaking of power they are speaking of power in usually ll aspects of society.
Up until recently, you've been arguing Power + Predjudice + History of Racism = Racism. That's what I meant by the abbreviated version. If you're no longer arguing that there needs to be a historical history of racism, then what is your argument against my example at the end. My example there fits the equation exactly.
What's your new argument? Are you claiming that a hiring manager has no power at all over the career of a job applicant?
Any power + prejudice = racism. Little power = little racism, a lot of power = a lot of racism, but it's racism nonetheless.
Jeo123, Mod cut you were to go back when someone else or you brought up an almost identical scenario: A white teacher being fired by a black principal who hates white people. I made it clear why under the UN definition of racism, the white teacher would not be experiencing racism but prejudice.
Jeo123, if you were to go back when someone else or you brought up an almost identical scenario: A white teacher being fired by a black principal who hates white people. I made it clear why under the UN definition of racism, the white teacher would not be experiencing racism but prejudice.
Yes, that was my example. Your argument as to why that wasn't racism is below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbf2324
Yes, by most definitions this would be considered racism but there is no way that this could be considered racism under the power + prejudice definition. B/c the teacher being discriminated against is white and whites have never had deeply rooted HISTORICAL, social, cultural and power inequalities in society. That bold part is straight from the definition.
So now we're at the crux of the issue. The UN definition does not contain the historical trend piece you used to argue why the teacher would not be experiencing racism. So your previous argument is now invalid. Under most definitions, including the UN one, there is no requirement of a historical trend.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 05-27-2014 at 12:51 PM..
Reason: Edited quote
Saying minorities/POC/Blacks cannot be racist is just as silly as Whites saying that White Privilege doesn't exist or that institutionalized racism doesn't exist.
I'm not denying racially-motivated wrongs exist... I'm saying that when directed towards white people, they are not instances of racism because they are not promoted and supported by an entire system. Comparing one instance of being discriminated against (like the teacher getting fired) because you are white to black people being taught from childhood that their skin color is inferior and having less opportunities in almost any area is what's disingenuous. Yes, of course there are black people who don't like white people or who will treat them badly. But when a black person is discriminating against you based on color they are not oppressing you;
Ok, so you're referring to the one above(shortened to highlight the argument, but the link to the quote full is there).
This is a shift in the argument now away from the need for a historical basis and a focus on it being supported by a system in modern time. That's still not something included in the definition power + predujce = racism because you can have some power without an oppression system. Yes, it's on a smaller scale and less harmful, but still comes down to the same thing.
However, take the list below of laws relating and note their LEGAL definitions.
Civil Rights Act of 1964: Title VII
Prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.
The Equal Credit Opportunity Act
Prohibits creditors from discriminating against credit applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or because an applicant receives income from a public assistance program.
U.S. Code Title 42, Chapter 21 -- Civil Rights
Title 42, Chapter 21 of the U.S. Code prohibits discrimination against persons based on age, disability, gender, race, national origin, and religion (among other things) in a number of settings -- including education, employment, access to businesses and buildings, federal services, and more. Chapter 21 is where a number of federal acts related to civil rights have been codified -- including the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act.
Fair Housing Act
Prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability.
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act
Provides for equitable and impartial relief operations, without discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion, nationality, sex, age, or economic status.
Time and time again, I can find examples that your additional clause of a history, an oppression system, or whatever other clause you want to add is not part of the widely accepted definitions of racism. Every one of these would have found my example above illegal. There is no legal definition of racism that describes what you're talking about.
To take this further, yes, there are various people who attempt to ascribe a secondary narrowing definition to racism vs racial discrimination. Let's start with one thing first, if you separate the two, you're moving away from every legal and written definition of racism and moving towards more of a definition of "what is good" type question where everyone has their own opinion.
Possible definitions:
Racism is simply a belief that your race is better than anyone else's, regardless of whether you act or don't act.
Racism requires both the belief or race superiority and discriminatory action(you can't be racist unless you do racist things regardless with racist intentions).
Racism requires the belief of race superiority, action along those lines, and the power to make your actions significantly affect the target individual (racist beliefs and action without power aren't racism)
Racism requires belief, discriminatory actions, power, and the oppression system(your argument above)
Racism is not actively fighting against racial imbalance and allowing it to continue to exist(if you're not helping us, you're against us)
And there are countless other "personal" definitions. So if you "personally" want to say minorities can't be racist, yes, you can twist the definition to the one you like most. However, at the end of the day from a legal definition, minorities can be racist. By dictionary definitions, they can be racist. By most definitions (including power + prejudice = racism) they can be racist.
If you have your own definition contrary to the primarily accepted definitions, then there's nothing to debate further since there is no evidence that can be provided to define a word other than the 3 sources I provided, and if you don't accept those definitions, then nothing will change it. But the majority of definitions say your definition(requiring a system) is incorrect. And there's no evidence you can provide to trump the combination of those three sources, all you have is your opinion and a minority of other opinions.
By most definitions (including power + prejudice = racism) they can be racist.
This is 100% false. If you have not read "Developing New Perspectives on Race" by Pat Bidol then you cannot say that this equation proves racism can be experienced by whites. She created this equation. It is not a definition. It only represents a more in depth definition/explanation in her book. Which states that we have power in every aspect of American Society; political, economical, judicial, educational, etc....She also states that we use this power (consciously or not) every single day to benefit our selves in turn oppressing those who are not like us.
Quote:
Posted by Jeo123
Time and time again, I can find examples that your additional clause of a history, an oppression system, or whatever other clause you want to add is not part of the widely accepted definitions of racism. Every one of these would have found my example above illegal. There is no legal definition of racism that describes what you're talking about.
Oppression is not an additional clause. yes I can agree History can be argued that it is an additional clause but not oppression. Oppression is just one word to describe the power + prejudice = racism.
This is the definition of oppression from dictionary.com
1. the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.
If one group of people have power over almost all aspects of society and they exercise that power to benefit themselves in turn exercising power in an unjust manner to minorities, they are oppressive (again consciously or not). The power + prejudice = racism is about systematic/institutionalized oppression. Minorities do not have power/"equal footing" in almost all aspects of American Society.
It is easy for you to refer to your definition as the dictionary definition (even though they all vary). I'm not asking you which particular definition are you talking about b/c they all essentially have the same meaning. When I say the "power + prejudice = racism" definition I'm not necessarily talking about the equation. I'm referring to the UN ICERD definition, the AU HREO definition of racism, the Canadian's def, the UNK definition, Bidol's definition, or Wildman and Davis's definition, etc... They all vary just a bit with wording but they all have the same meaning. This is not a "personal" definition or just a small group of people who made up some random definition. This "power + prejudice = racism" definition has been supported/used/accepted by many prestigious institutions, scholars, law makers, individuals, equal rights groups, etc. Just b/c some people have not read their studies or arguments doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is not valid.
Just b/c something is legal that doesn't mean it is right. The legal definition of family is dramatically different from what is considered family for the gay community . Only until recently have they had the right to visit their loved ones in hospitals b/c they weren't considered "family". Technically in many states they still aren't considered legally family. To have themselves legally recognized as one is part of their fight.
But your 100% correct. If you are only recognizing the dictionary version of racism or some indirect legal phrase which encompasses part of the definition of racism. And you choose to ignore a definition which has been supported by many groups of people all over the world. Then no I cannot prove that we cannot experience racism.
I'm not going to continue in the conversation b/c I'm wrong so-to-say. I will say this; I accept the fact that I am racist and I will always be racist (even if it is just a little) b/c I benefit from a system that was designed to benefit my race. It is extremely easy to call out the old white guy for saying racist things. It is much harder and more painful to examine our own unconscious assumptions, attitudes, and privileges and how that affects others.
Last edited by kbf2324; 05-28-2014 at 07:08 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
