6
7

Here's Why Black People Can't Be Racist (mic.com)

Archchancellor が 投稿

全 34 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]facefault 61ポイント62ポイント  (16子コメント)

The prejudice+power definition is not the only definition of racism. It is NOT the only definition of racism used in academia. Judging by the papers I've read, it isn't even the most common one.

Institutional racism against minorities is a much, much bigger problem than individual bigotry against majorities. Obviously. But telling people in the majority that they can't use the word "racism" to refer to bigotry they've experienced is not useful. All it does is make them go "well, fuck your definition" and want to spite us.

[–]wightjiltSchrodinger's Cuck 23ポイント24ポイント  (3子コメント)

As much as I've seen the Webster definition get made fun of in progressive circles, that always struck me as odd. Racism and institutional racism can both exist and mean very different things.

[–]AWeepingAngelsThesisTHE WHITE KNIGHT ALWAYS TRIUMPHS! 18ポイント19ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's also a little confusing when progressives mock the dictionary definition of racism, but cite the dictionary definition of feminism in debates with MRAs.

[–]wightjiltSchrodinger's Cuck 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because hypocrisy and factionalism get all people even the ones that have politics I agree with :(

[–]Archchancellor[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

What I've seen with terms like "institutional racism" or "patriarchy" or "privilege" is that they have a difficult time becoming common parlance, because reactionaries are going to say they're not even real. How many times have you read, on this website, that "institutional racism" is "A made-up term." I understand that racism is a deeply controversial and sensitive subject. I also understand that it has a broad definition. I also know that words like "prejudice" and "bigotry" also exist. All three of these words have been far more established in common conversation than "institutional racism."

Part of the problem, as I see it, when it comes down to discussions of race and systemic/institutional discrimination, is that we too freely allow "racism" to be used. The word, as I've said elsewhere, loses so much of its context with such a broad definition, by allowing statements like "all people can be racist." Because it makes people intellectually lazy. I'm not talking about people who are interested in social justice, I'm talking about people who don't see or understand the topic from a sociological perspective.

The word "racism," as inflammatory as it is, is increasingly difficult to use, because people are able to come back with "NO U" and then shut their brains off.

[–]AWeepingAngelsThesisTHE WHITE KNIGHT ALWAYS TRIUMPHS! 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

Also, the definition of "racism" as simple racial prejudice is so entrenched in popular discourse that it seems kind of futile to change it. I feel like "white supremacy" is a more useful term for institutional racism anyway (and in societies where white people aren't dominant, you can replace it with "Arab supremacy" or "Japanese supremacy" or "Han Chinese supremacy" what have you). Similarly, "misogyny" and "patriarchy" are words that already exist to describe systemic sexism.

[–]Archchancellor[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's not that I'm against this suggestion. I mean, it's entirely accurate. I just see the way "white supremacy" is conceptualized, and I think white people are going to fight against that even harder, since it invokes neo-nazism, the KKK, lynching, etc.

[–]sayer_of_things 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thank you for saying this. I wish more people around me had your common sense :(

[–]dudeseriouslyno#FrameBrownPeopleWeDontLikeAsTerroristsRightAfterMassMurdersGate -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit:

This isn't actually a bot. For feedback, call 1-800-KILL-ALL-MEN.

[–]Kyouko223beta cuck 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nooooo! Not the precious narrative!

[–]Freelanceartist 6ポイント7ポイント  (6子コメント)

So I've talked about this topic in the past in regards to Chris Rock making racist jokes about Asian Americans.

"We can be prejudiced, but racism implies power and institutions behind it. I can be prejudiced, I can be like, 'I don't like white people,' but I can't, like, not hire them or not give them their voting rights.

Well actually yes he can, if he runs a shop and decides I hate Asians I'm going to have my security guards search all of them, I don't trust them. I won't hire any Asians.

A friend of mine used to live in the UK his boss was black and his boss would design peoples homes. He would not deal with Asian clients at all he said he didn't trust them. The only time he would work for an Asian client is if they came to the office directly and asked.

Yes black people can be racist, yes Asians can be racist, yes everyone can be racist. It doesn't matter who has the power.

Power + prejudice is 100% relative. Not everywhere on earth is America, different countries have different power and race relations it isn't hard to grasp but I've debated many people that tell me black people calling my mother a ton of slurs isn't racist because in America white people have the power.

[–]Archchancellor[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

That's bigotry, yes. It's prejudice, yes. But the Asian shop owner in the US does not have the backing of legislation to legitimize their bigotry. That's the difference.

There are different degrees of racial bigotry. Why are we content to just throw all of it under the umbrella term "racism" when we also have "bigotry" and "prejudice?"

[–]Freelanceartist 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Well I meant black shop owner can say he doesn't like Asians, but anyway do white people honestly have legislation in the US to protect them from not hiring due to race?

Why are we content to just throw all of it under the umbrella term "racism" when we also have "bigotry" and "prejudice?"

Because racism is when you are prejudice because of race. Why do we use the term sexism and not prejudice or bigotry? Why do we use the term homophobia instead of the term prejudice or bigotry?

Can a black person be racist to Asians or is that impossible? Is it impossible for Asians to be racist to black people as well? I'm honestly curious about this.

[–]Archchancellor[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

do white people honestly have legislation in the US to protect them from not hiring due to race?

No, but are you aware of voter ID laws in the States? These laws disproportionately affect poor people, a disproportionate number of them being black. The law is designed to disenfranchise black voters, and there are people on record all but saying it!

Because racism is when you are prejudice because of race. Why do we use the term sexism and not prejudice or bigotry? Why do we use the term homophobia instead of the term prejudice or bigotry?

That's a good question, especially considering that, in the US, we have states trying to deny gay people the right to marry. In states where they're allowed to marry, religious homophobes have passed legislation protecting their "right" to refuse service to gay people on the basis of "religion."

Can a black person be racist to Asians or is that impossible? Is it impossible for Asians to be racist to black people as well? I'm honestly curious about this.

This somewhat addresses the other recent post that you made: it is about context, but I still firmly assert that there needs to be a way to draw attention to legislated, legitimized bigotry. Can an Asian minority in the US be racist toward black people? I don't know; is their bigotry protected and supported by legislative power?

If we're in Japan, or South Korea, or China, then I totally believe that it's possible. But in the US?

[–]Freelanceartist 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

No, but are you aware of voter ID laws in the States? These laws disproportionately affect poor people, a disproportionate number of them being black. The law is designed to disenfranchise black voters, and there are people on record all but saying it!

I am aware of this, however this doesn't mean black people can't be racist and doesn't mean there are laws that allow white people not to hire on race. So while I understand what you said...It has no real relevance to the question asked.

That's a good question, especially considering that, in the US, we have states trying to deny gay people the right to marry. In states where they're allowed to marry, religious homophobes have passed legislation protecting their "right" to refuse service to gay people on the basis of "religion."

And there are just people who are out right homophobic. Not apart of the government but you would say that they were homophobic. If two guys on the street corner (lets say one is a white dude and the other is a Latino man) they would be homophobic we wouldn't call them prejudice against gay people we would say homophobic.

When we see two people holding sexist signs we call them sexist not prejudice against women. However for some reason when we see Chris Rock being racist we say well...he isn't racist he is just prejudice against Asians.

This somewhat addresses the other recent post that you made: it is about context, but I still firmly assert that there needs to be a way to draw attention to legislated, legitimized bigotry. Can an Asian minority in the US be racist toward black people? I don't know; is their bigotry protected and supported by legislative power?

The way to draw attention to legislated legitimized bigotry is to say its legislated racism. Not just racism.

It is very simple if you discriminate based on race you are a racist. That guy in south Africa who made the waitress cry then gloat about it was a racist. Simply put. The guy who said during a debate that white people need to die is a racist. Chris Rock making racist jokes about Asian is racist.

[–]Archchancellor[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I would have no problem calling any of those situations "bigoted" or "prejudiced" or "misogynist."

The Zimbabwean seizure of white owned land, along with the torture and killing of whites that refused to leave, was racism, without a doubt.

[–]shahryarrakeenSometimes J-school Wonk 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

While I agree with the institutional vs. individual distinction, I think that example of the US Asian shop owner is off the mark. As model minorities, Asians of all origins in the US do benefit from institutional anti-black racism.

[–]TheGreatGamerGatsby 34ポイント35ポイント  (0子コメント)

This argument again?

If it is only institutional racism, yes black people can't really be racist. But on an individual level, any race, including black people, can be racist.

[–]Admiralbiatch2I did nothing wrong and I won't do it again 11ポイント12ポイント  (6子コメント)

You know, when people say "prejudice + power" is the definition of racism, it reminds me of the cop out some people use like "I'm not racist, but...". This is something I'd like to ask, is a "prejudiced" bigot any better than a racist one? If someone holds an implicit fear, mistrust, and hatred toward another person due to their skin color or ethnicity, then how does not calling it racism make it any different? Rationalwiki has a good article about this subject.

[–]feelsjustlike 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw_mRaIHb-M

[–]Archchancellor[S] -4ポイント-3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Paul Mooney: Why Black People Can't be Racists

[–]Mesl 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

The ideas he's trying to express are important. They are things people need to be aware of.

Redefining the word "racism" doesn't help with that.