A Counter-Master Post to the Reverse Racism Master Post
I should have done this a long time ago.
I didn’t, however, because I wasn’t as informed on the matter as I am now. For a while, upon hearing this re-definition of racism it felt wrong, but that feeling wasn’t something I could put into cold factual material. For the past I year I’ve more or less spent my time, in between debunking common myths and pointing out the hypocrisy in different discussions, informing myself as much as possible on the definition of racism, it’s etymology, it’s variations, etc. What I’ve compiled will be a direct response to this widely spread post, which has long since been deleted by it’s author.
Let’s begin:
In short: racism = prejudice + institutionalised, systemic oppression
Right and wrong (mostly, however, wrong). Primarily, when talking about the definition of racism, this is the first argument presented. It suffers many flaws, but they can be summed up in a word: context.
Context is what gives us our understanding of the world. It allows for relevant discussion, and as should be known relevant discussion is one of the most important aspects of social activism. What this definition suffers from is a startling lack of context that the layman’s definition provides. This is for a couple of reasons:
1. The purpose of this definition:
What was the purpose of this definition? Originally, if the source is anything to go by, it was to discuss the issues of institutional racism in the context of the United States. While also important to remember that this was the specific context, and that it does not state that non-white people can never be racist, it also goes on to say this:
Note that it does not say “To these definitions may be replaced”, it says “To these definitions may be added”.
Meaning that not only does the definition not dictate that non-whites are incapable of racism, but that it was never meant to replace the original definition. Why is this?
2. The application of this definition:
Because the “power+prejudice” definition of racism is what we would call a stipulative definition. Meaning what, exactly? Well the meaning of a stipulative definition is one “in which a new or currently-existing term is given a specific meaning for the purposes of argument or discussion in a given context. [note the use of the word “context” again.]” A stipulative definition is not necessarily right or wrong, merely a variation of an existing definition. This also means that it is not intended as a replacement for a pre-existing definition of a term.
Replacing the dictionary definition of racism with this stipulation would be redundant and narrow-minded as it is, however, because the definition of racism also covers the sub-category of institutional racism, as well as individual and inter-personal racism. Racism as it stands is an umbrella definition that covers a variety of scenarios and contexts that a specific definition would apply to. An example:
"African-Americans being historically subjected to government-enforced inequality and oppression would be *racism.”
"A black person beating up a white person for the colour of their skin would be **racism.”
In the first case, the instance of *racism occurring would be institutional racism.
In the second instance, the instance of **racism occurring would be individual racism.
Both are legitimate concepts that exist, and both qualify under the definition of racism.
My last point:
3. The inconsistencies that arise as a result of applying the definition being perpetuated:
I’ve already discussed that the “power+prejudice” definition is being widely misused. Now I’ll go into why it is detrimental to the efforts those who use it are trying to support:
It neglects racism between minorities. This is a topic not many people actually discuss, as it deals with something that isn’t widely considered. Both, in this case (provided we are now using Pat Bidol's definition) would not be in a position of institutional power. However, if one were to attack the other based on the colour of their skin, what would it be considered? It certainly goes beyond mere “prejudice”, and the argument of “upholding white supremacy” notwithstanding (mainly because of it's nature as a non-argument) it would put the situation in a sociological limbo, of sorts; it's neither here nor there. And that's a problem.
It’s a problem because racism between minorities is something that regularly occurs. It’s something I both witnessed and experienced during my time in the United States and it is something I’ve read and been told many stories about. It is a legitimate issue and one worth mentioning, and (mis)using the definition stifles that discussion in a significant and meaningful way.
It ignores international socio-political dynamics. It’s impossible to simultaneously assert the belief both that racism=power+prejudice and that white people can never experience racism. Why? Because the ethnic minority in America is the ethnic majority in another part of the world. In those cases they would be the ones in political and institutional power, they would be the ones active in government, and white people would be the ethnic minority. If the government, these things considered, then were to make a law or discriminatory action directly against white people, it would qualify as racism even under this definition. Yet when confronted with this fact many still ignore it and continue to assert the belief that racism against white people is non-existent. Which leads to the following:
American-centrism. While not a huge issue entirely on it’s own (but an issue nonetheless), it is amplified significantly when applied to these discussions. American-centrism is a problem that permeates every crevice of this website, from fandom to social justice, and in many ways it destroys any meaningful platform for discussion that could otherwise be had. It puts everything in the context of the United States, minimizes the very real issues that exist beyond North America, and is a massive insult to the visitors of this website that do not live in America, and therefore do not have an American understanding of popular topics of discussion.
Moving on.
But since white people don’t seem to be able to understand that, here is a whole lot of links:
Basics on racism:
The first link, while interesting, pertains specifically to the concept of privilege (both white and male), in the specific context of United States society, and goes no further than that. Already it is barely relevant to the discussion of who racism applies to.
The second link suffers the issue of being both heavily biased and having sources that are equally as biased. Rather than looking at the concept of race and racism from an objective, international perspective, they choose sources which agree with their viewpoint from the beginning, even going as far as to cite a comedic skit as a source for their claims. It also, at times, manages to completely side-step the issue of rationalizing the definition altogether, instead moving in favour of asserting points that are either straw-man arguments or completely irrelevant. In short, this link is a circle-jerk of confirmation bias and pats-on-the-back that does nothing to properly educate the individual(s) it is likely directed at.
The third is an opinion piece, that, while long, thorough and concise, bleeds from the pores with white guilt and does nothing to really answer the question of why “reverse racism doesn’t exist”. Even then, the post contradicts the OPs point, as they author specifically states something contrary to their argument in the opinion piece:
Racism has many facets. One of them is racial prejudice, the personal belief that one race is superior to others.
The next section:
Reverse racism doesn’t exist:
The first video used has dialogue that exists completely under the supposition that racism exists primarily and solely on an institutional level. It’s premise is blatantly American-centric, talking only of white people as societal beneficiaries. I’ve already pointed out the inconsistencies with having the discussion in this manner so any further elaboration would be redundant.
The rest of these links are of the same nature. Rather than properly analyzing the issue, they simply assert their belief under the supposition that it is fact, when in reality it was never beyond theory and therefore had plenty of room to be incorrect. Rather than saying “well yes, this definition exists,” they begin with the idea that “No, you are wrong, that definition is wrong, this is right." which again, considering the nature of stipulative definitions, is completely and utterly fallacious.
Linking to a comedian as a source is also probably not good research practice.
Myths Debunked:
Once again, link 1 (a point I will probably be repeating ad nauseam) simply goes into the argument as if it already were, and everything that follows is confirmation bias. Which isn’t to say institutional racism isn’t a legitimate concept, because it is and should be treated as such; however it is not the only concept, and certainly not the only one worth discussing. It also perpetuates other silly fallacies such as misandry not existing (silly because the woman [a feminist, no less] who coined the definition of sexism stated herself that: “Women are sexists as often as men.”[x]) It’s only support is a crude, kindergarten-esque mathematics formula, which is simple, absurd and embarrassing.
The second link (as reluctant as I am to admit it being that Jezebel is the source) is actually not without merit; white people, obviously, are not institutionally oppressed in American society. Beyond that, there isn’t much relevance to the article.
What About Where White People Are Not The Majority?
- Sorry, still not “reverse racism” (x)
The source for this claim is not only completely irrelevant to their claim (since the topic of the source is “white privilege in non-white countries” and not "racism where white people are the minority"), it is also completely simple-minded. Yes, white privilege can exist where white people are not the ethnic majority, in places such as China where they’ll literally pay for “white business partners” to make their business look better, and Western beauty standards etc., but this does nothing to address the topic of white people being discriminated against in non-white countries for the colour of their skin (an example being the subjection of white people to mass murder and discrimination under the rule of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe). It should also be noted that anti-white hate crimes were second to anti-black hate crimes as the most prevalent in a 2012 FBI survey.
The final two links in the master post are not entirely relevant to the topic of reverse racism and a discussion on their own, so I will not be addressing them. Regarding the final link, while all of those examples are horrible and worth regarding, they in no way mean that white people cannot experience racism. You wouldn’t give sources for a completely different topic in a research paper to assert your argument, so how that somehow applies in this case is beyond me.
TL;DR: You’re right, reverse racism doesn’t exist: It’s just racism. Racism is a universal concept, that applies to all peoples internationally, and implying that any one people cannot experience it for factors that are directly and solely related to America is not only completely American-centric, it is narrow-minded and ignorant.
[**P.S. Semantics are a funny thing. All things considered, just don’t be an asshole. Be kind to one another, help others, be a productive member of society, promote rights for those who can’t earn them alone. If we do all these things not only as a society, but as a species, then arguing over which definition of racism is “right”/”wrong” won’t be necessary.]