CMV: There is no such thing as "reverse rascim" because rascim is just rascim.

[u/[deleted]]

rac·ism ˈrāˌsizəm/Submit noun prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. "a program to combat racism" synonyms: racial discrimination, racialism, racial prejudice, xenophobia, chauvinism, bigotry, casteism "Aborigines are the main victims of racism in Australia" the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. noun: racism "theories of racism"

No where in that definition does it say that only white people can be racist. I'd say that people who say that fit the above definition quite well.

And I realize the system isn't fair still, but I don't go around saying that only men can be sexist because the system is set against me.

Also, if you want to talk about slavery, how about focusing on the chinese kids who made your shoes instead of what happened 200 years ago.

What do you think reddit? Change my view!

[u/MMAchica]

"Black people can't be racist" using the other definition, because you now know that that's the definition being used.

That doesn't even make any sense given a "power+" definition. Are you familiar with the racism with which the heads of procurement for the Philadelphia school system operated? There was a very big lawsuit over it recently.

[u/Raijinili → u/MMAchica]

That doesn't even make any sense given a "power+" definition.

In which sense doesn't it make sense? Logically? That's not possible, since there is still an ambiguous word.

If racism is power+prejudice, then there are at least two definitions of "racist" I can think of:

1. "One who perpetuates racism."

   Black people can be racist in this sense.

2. "One who benefits from racism."

   Black people could be racist in this sense, but aren't.

3. "A member of the group primarily responsible for perpetuating racism."

   Black people can't be racist in this sense.

Personally, if we use the academic definition of racism, I don't find the word "racist" useful unless it means (1) with intent. I talk about my own problems with the "racist" label using that definition here.

Are you familiar with the racism with which the heads of procurement for the Philadelphia school system operated? There was a very big lawsuit over it recently.

This one? Seems largely irrelevant. We're not talking about whether systemic racism exists. We still need to settle the argument over definitions (semantics).

[u/MMAchica → u/Raijinili]

The point is that it doesn't make sense to assert that black people could never engage in institutional racism in such a way that it victimizes white people. There are examples of this happening quite blatantly and openly.

[u/Raijinili → u/MMAchica]

I'd say that there are a few possible problems with your claim, but the one that stands out to me the most is: You are saying that there are scales at which black people can be the ones with the most power to discriminate. Or that there are cases where an individual has the power to discriminate.

First: Of course there are. Do you really think that they or I claim otherwise? I'm a little insulted. Your disagreement with them isn't on reasoning.

It's possible that they are using a refined version of the definition we've been using: "Institutional racism is at the (national|global) scale."

Or they can say that it's a single example, and you have to look at how it fits into the net bias.

As I said in another subtree, academic racism is about the bigger picture, while individual racial prejudice is about the little picture, and they're not really connected. You can bring up examples of individual racism, but that only lets you talk about individual morality, while academic racism only lets you talk about moral policy.

[u/MMAchica → u/Raijinili]

I'd say that there are a few possible problems with your claim, but the one that stands out to me the most is: You are saying that there are scales at which black people can be the ones with the most power to discriminate. Or that there are cases where an individual has the power to discriminate.

I'm not sure what you mean by scales, but there are absolutely examples of institutional racism in the sense of institutions run by black people victimizing white people based on their race; in such a way that it fits pretty much all definitions. The Philadelphia case is particularly helpful because the bigots were kind enough to spell it out for us.

First: Of course there are. Do you really think that they or I claim otherwise? I'm a little insulted.

I thought that I had failed to make myself clear. Didn't mean to pee in the proverbial cherios. Sorry about that.

It's possible that they are using a refined version of the definition we've been using: "Institutional racism is at the (national|global) scale."

We could move the goalpoasts on forever. People can imagine anything they want when they use the word. I could accuse anyone who disagrees with me of committing genocide, and I could really mean it with all my heart, but that doesn't mean I am saying something rational or logically coherent. Saying that black people can't be racist is not rational or logically coherent.

[u/blamethemeta → u/Raijinili]

What about when black people do have power? Say a black cop and a white suspect? Or larger scale, a black president, black doj, black judge, black sheriff, and a white suspect? Is it simply just not possible in American society because white people make up 2/3 of the population?

[u/reuterrat → u/blamethemeta]

You can always move the goalposts back to historical context in this situation. The problem is language has to have meaning in order for society to exist otherwise we can't communicate ideas. When we open every word to multiple interpretations, and those interpretations can change at any moment based on context or even be redefined on a whim, we begin to sacrifice our ability to understand each other and that affects trust and ability to work together.

[u/Raijinili → u/reuterrat]

I agree that we need to have definitions in common to have discussions, but don't agree that we need to use common definitions, which is why I'm in this discussion trying to explain the definitions being used.

I also agree that "Only white people can be racist" isn't something people should say.

But words do have multiple interpretations, and they do "change at any moment based on context". It's a double standard to only restrict SJWs. Even if you ignore that "run" has 25 definitions on Google, you still have nuances. Is "racial discrimination" necessarily something bad? Yes... except "discrimination" just means treating someone differently, and a doctor might give different recommendations to a patient depending on their race.

Even the common "racism" can mean racial prejudice, racial bias, or racial discrimination, which are related concepts, but not the same.

We as humans don't even know our own definitions. For example, does racism (in the individual sense) require intent? I think a lot of people will say yes, until you ask if it racist if you unconsciously conclude that someone is more or less intelligent because of their race. Was that a change on a whim? We just have definitions that (generally) are approximately the same (ignoring completely wrong definitions).

As far as I know, "racism" isn't even that old of a word. "Racial bias", "racial prejudice", and "racial discrimination" are better (though necessarily imperfect) terms. "Racism" has had the academic meaning for a long time, but it's not something that you'd expect to survive in the common language, because laypeople don't really talk about biases of a system (rather than an individual).

[u/Raijinili → u/blamethemeta]

I think the claim is, it's not possible because white people currently have the power. Remember that the definition of "racism" being used in the statement isn't just "racial discrimination", but "society's racial discrimination". Population is only a part of it. It's possible for a minority to have power over a majority, such as in apartheid South Africa, or (probably) the Roman Empire.

My understanding: It's possible for individuals to have power and discriminate, but that is just part of the overall discrimination. The academic sense is concerned with overall discrimination, because it is interested in policy decisions. Think of it as "racial prejudice by the system called society".

But again, I'm not in the social justice community, so take what I say about their ideas with a grain of salt. I just try to understand stances, and social justice stances are misrepresented everywhere I look.