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.
To say minorities can be racist against Whites, is racist in and of itself, because its veils the experience of minorities, in favor of the experience of whites.
Everyone one can be prejudice, and we all can discriminate - which is acting on that prejudice - but minorities can not oppress whites, therefore can not be racist.
Again, why does everyone keep focusing on the myopic view that that we are focusing on blacks being racist against whites?? Or even a minority against whites. Please go back and read the dictionary definition quoted on the first page.
Then try to broaden you mind beyond a simple white/black issue. What if a Korean family is living in a neighborhood mostly composed of Japanese with no whites nearby. Both are "minorities" in the US. Can either exhibit racism toward the other? Or a black family living in a Hispanic neighborhood. Or vice versa.
The question being debated is, "Can any minority person (or group) exhibit racism toward any other human (or group)?"
It is NOT, "Can blacks be racist against whites?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saritaschihuahua
The perpetrators of discrimination shouldn't try to convince others that their victims are also discriminating against them. It's absurd and laughable.
This is a completely invalid argument. A man who rapes a woman and gets sent to prison is within his rights to complain when he is raped while locked up. I would be what he deserves, but he may complain about it and lobby for better security. Both sides in a war may very well be both the perpetrators and victims of war crimes.
Even if I agreed with your argument, uless you are claiming that all members of a particular race are guilty of racism there is nothing in your argument preventing an innocent member of the dominant race from claiming discrimination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saritaschihuahua
In the U.S., it is a white issue.
See first my first response above. You can completely remove whites from the discussion and it is still a valid discussion.
Careful guys, this thread is going to get closed with posts like these.
We can certainly create another thread about which type of racism(majority vs minority or minority vs majority) is worse. I'm sure it could also turn into a rather lengthy discusssion when scale comes into play for determining minority. That however is a topic for that thread, not this one.
The topic at hand is not which type of racism is worse, but rather can the latter exist. As these posts go on, I think more and more people are supporting the stance that "Yes, it does exist" however it's just not as detrimental. In an effort to refocus this conversation, what is the remaining argument that "Minorities cannot be racist"?
And to follow up what I said, minorities can be racist, but their racism is much less dangerous. Anyone can be racist, but minority-on-majority racism has caused far less damage than vice versa.
And to follow up what I said, minorities can be racist, but their racism is much less dangerous. Anyone can be racist, but minority-on-majority racism has caused far less damage than vice versa.
Oh, sorry! I saw "Lou" and thought maybe it was a reference to Louboutin's ha.
If we're going to harp and whine about slavery, which happened over 200 years ago then why not bring up whites who were enslaved? I say "get over it" but hey, some still want to hold negative opinions over something that no one today had control over or experienced.
Jim Crow ended 40-50 years ago, and it is seriously debatable as to whether those who suffered under this system were any better off than those under slavery. Its really only since the 90s that blacks have begun to have anything like a level playing field in the USA.
And indeed (as you mention white slavery) similar pathologies also exist in other marginalized groups. The whites of the Appalachia being an example, and much of the white working class of the UK being another. So much so that even Thomas Sowell describes the culture of pathology that entraps maybe 30% of the black population as "black red neck" culture, seeing parallels between these two Southern origin cultures of pathology. Indeed prior to the Great Migration of Southern blacks to Northern cities the blacks there had fashioned a decent lifestyle, despite the extreme prejudice that they encountered.
White slavery ended 300 years ago, and whites have enjoyed tremendous privileges over non white groups since then. To the extent that a segment of the white population continues to be treated unfairly, this is at the hands of white controlled institutions.
The whites who are unfairly treated suffer this because they are poor, but then they refuse to join with other poor people to solve the problem. This is because having a white skin brings much privilege in this world, especially for white men, and they aren't about to give that up, even when it doesn't benefit them.
So as we speak about blacks and focus on their problems poorer parts of KY, WV, and TN are breeding a type of pathology where almost 50% of the kids are now being raised by their GRANDparents. Why? Because their parents are drug addicts or alcoholics, or otherwise unfit to parent.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 07-15-2014 at 04:35 PM..
Reason: Fixed formatting
, what is the remaining argument that "Minorities cannot be racist"?
The remaining argument is racism=power+prejudice. People are free to accept, or not accept this definition. What has been proven is that within the USA white racism is far more damaging (however defined) than that of other groups (if we accept the definition that racism is confined to merely not liking other people).
But let us examine minority racism, using the definition which says merely not liking other people makes one racist. There are two sources.
The most wide spread being the sense of anger about being poorly treated, usually by whites. Really. Given the history of the USA and its treatment of blacks, Native Americans and darker Hispanics, why is there a shock that there will not be some level of rage aimed towards those seen as perpetuating, or benefitting from this system.
The other source comes from immigrant groups who buy into a system of ethnic ranking, which is basically an adaptation of white American racism. Not to say that those groups don't bring their own biases, but if those biases weren't supported by US style (white) racism then they would quickly die out.
So how ever one looks at it past, and to a lesser degree, present white racism is the most dangerous of them all within the USA.
What has been proven is that within the USA white racism is far more damaging (however defined) than that of other groups (if we accept the definition that racism is confined to merely not liking other people).
No, it was proven that it's off topic here and that it would need to be another thread if you want to have that conversation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribny
But let us examine minority racism, using the definition which says merely not liking other people makes one racist. There are two sources.
The most wide spread being the sense of anger about being poorly treated, usually by whites. Really. Given the history of the USA and its treatment of blacks, Native Americans and darker Hispanics, why is there a shock that there will not be some level of rage aimed towards those seen as perpetuating, or benefitting from this system.
The rationality of racism by a minority is off topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribny
The other source comes from immigrant groups who buy into a system of ethnic ranking, which is basically an adaptation of white American racism. Not to say that those groups don't bring their own biases, but if those biases weren't supported by US style (white) racism then they would quickly die out.
Source of racism is also off topic.
Under the definition of acting against people based on race, minorities can be racist.
No, it was proven that it's off topic here and that it would need to be another thread if you want to have that conversation.
The rational of racism by a minority is off topic.
Source of racism is also off topic.
Under the definition of acting against people based on race, minorities can be racist.
So the argument is circular. Those who belong to the group most often accused of being racist will cite the mere fact of disliking some one of an ethnic group. Then cite silly examples like being bullied.. So can we argue that the blacks/Hispanics who bullied whites, and who definitely also bullied non whites hate their own ethnic group? Because black on black, Hispanic on Hispanic violence is considerably higher than violence perpetuated by either group against whites.
Those who have been historically targeted by racism (especially blacks) will define racism as the ability to enforce one's prejudices through domination of social, political, and economic institutions. This because the mere fact that a white might hate a black doesn't have damaging impact. Its when that whites uses his greater access to white controlled institutions to enact his beliefs that it becomes damaging.
So if you are looking for a singular answer you will not get one. Now you might wish to peddle YOUR definition, but many people here view it differently.
So we have to agree to disagree because I haven't seen any evidence that you have won any converts to your side, and there is a clear racial perspective on this topic.
What you will NOT be allowed to do is to attempt to find equivalency between biased attitudes of non whites towards people from other groups, compared to the significant impact on non whites of white racism!
At this point we should just agree to disagree because you aren't going to shift those of us who define racism as racism=prejudice+power.
It appears what you've done here is define the word in such a way that it renders only whites capable of racism. I congratulate you on your verbal and intellectual acrobatics, and wish you well in your pursuit to mitigate racism toward whites because of minorities' historical "lack of power." If "enforcement" is the difference between "racist" and "not racist" then Westboro Baptist Church is not racist by your definition.
But I digress. This thread has outlived its usefulness. We are trying to discuss if minorities can be racist but cannot even agree on a definition of "racism." And when some wish to gerrymander the definition in such a way to rule out possibilities without considering their merit the discussion is an exercise in futility.
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.
