I say no for this simple reason. The term “reverse racism” implies that racism is being directed at (or reversed to) the true creator of racism itself. This would imply that since the term “reverse racism” is most often used to refer to whites that are being discriminated against that white people are the ones who created or started racism.
I believe that the use of the term reverse racism is not even a logical term. Isn’t racism, racism. No matter who it is directed at or who is practising it. Using the term “reverse racism” when referring to any situation involving racism seems to trivialize the victim and the situation. It is as if the victim is not being discriminated against in the normal way but some less viscious form because they happen to be white.
There seems to exist a double standard when dealing with racism in this society. We often times allow members of minority groups voice racist and ignorant statements about the white culture without any form of outrage being expressed. It is as if it is okay for some races to practise racism but not others. This is disturbing because in order for use to advance our nation we need to begin to eliminate the fear and ignorance that causes racism to exist. If we simply focus one on specific group we are taking a shallow approach to the problem of racism and will do little to build our nation from within. I feel that all racism is wrong. Plain and simple. Racism should not be tolerated by any citizen and all members of our society should be held to the same standards. Your feedback is appreciated.
True, the dictionary defines racism primarily as a belief that race is a primary determinant of human traits and capacities, nothing more, nothing less.
In fact given our current understanding of genetics, and the fact that the overwhelming conscencus among physical anthropologists and biologists is that race, as distinct divisions of humanity, is a scientifically useless word, given that there is more genetic diversity between two lowland African gorillas than in the entire human race.
So, it is important to understand that in a modern context, race is simply an artifact of scientific misconceptions and fallacies, talking about race as if it actually existed today (even with the supposed justification that it is still emotionally valid if not factually valid), is like if we were able to make the flat earth theory or the geocentric theory of the universe a prominent and important part of social policy debate. It all rests on plaid old human ignorance.
Given the above, I would argue that a racist is anyone who believes in the existence of race, putting that annoying group of thinkers where they belong, among the other crazies of the modern world, (i.e. creationists, and holocaust revisionist).
All trying to force their ideas (race, flat earth, the nonexistence of the Holocaust) through fear and intimidation when they were foced to give up on the use of reason, after it showed a complete absence of truth to their claims.
Just last nite here in LA there was an awards show-bits were shown on local news- for Asian TV Newscasters. Think a show only for "white newscasters “would leave any still employed? Magic Johnson still does his game for the"United Negro College Fund.” Every year my father used to ask me “What if Bird did that for whites only.”
My answer was,well Magic’s is only for 2 years of college,Bird’s for 5.
I think the term reverse racism was coined to cover situations where a minority group complaining of racism expresses racist tendencies similar to what they claim they are suffering.
well, “reverse psychology”, is like saying psychology of opposites, referring to telling someone to do one thing with the intention of having them do the opposite. If you omit the reverse part it’s just psychology. “Reverse racism” on the other hand refers to the normal target of racism acting racist themselves, but it should really mean not acting racist (if you’re trying to say the use of reverse is the same in both phrases)
Affirmative action is meant to create equality between groups where it does not currently exist; it is not ‘reverse racism’. Though attacks on affirmative action are thinly veiled as promoting equal treatment of members of different groups, ‘equal treatment’ will do nothing but maintain the status quo. And the status quo is decidedly unequal.
Affirmative action is bullshit. If you can’t get a job because of discrimination, then sue. If you want to get a job, get an education and acquire pertinent job experience. The status quo may be unequal in that whites have higher paying jobs, but this is because there are more whites than minorities. Affirmative action is just plain racist. If I’m a white guy and I try to get a job at an all black company, is affirmative action applied? If I tried to get into Howard University would they cut me some slack on my test scores to fill the white quota?
Wow. Can you please provide the statistical analysis that concludes that blacks (as an example) have such a significant income disparity with whites because there are fewer blacks. I can’t wait.
Right. Because our court system isn’t swamped enough. And because it really is very easy to prove you’re being discriminated against when it’s just you going against a corporation and a team of overpaid lawyers. Right.
I don’t know anything about a “white quota”, but yes, HBCUs (historically black colleges and universities) do admit non-blacks in order to diversify their student bodies. Have your really looked into the subject or are you just assuming discrimination exists where none does? I have a feeling it’s the latter.
I never liked the term “reverse racism”. It always seemed to imply that the “good old racism” (white racism towards blacks) was the norm. Racism is racism. Ain’t no reverse or forward about it.
If you take the test for fireman in a nearby town, you receive extra points for “not being white”. Their is much racial diversity of the higher ups on the department choosing which candidates make the academy. Do any of you here think this is fair?
Chefguy, does your statement, "Isn’t this sort of like telling Ethiopians to “move to where the food is”?, imply that blacks are hindered from getting an education or acquiring pertinent job experience? I work with many, many blacks who are working their way up the corporate ladder (and some down it) based on work performance, not color.
This is somewhat disingenuous on your part. And yes, a disproportionate percentage of ethnic groups are indeed hindered from getting an education or acquiring job experience. It’s called socio-economics, and is too lengthy a subject to delve into here.
I happen to agree that once someone has begun to work within the corporate or public system, that success or failure should be based on performance. Promotions based on ethnic backgrounds do not sit well with me. It’s inherently unfair to all, and promotes resentment in the workplace. However, I also believe that some folks need a leg-up to get to a point where they can begin to compete.
Since any discussion on race is usually emotionally charged, I had a feeling that things like affirmative action and racial inequality would become the focal points of the conversation rather than my original post. I appreciate all of the feedback to my question of whether or not “reverse racism” actually exists. In order to maintain this post as a manageable discussion, it is important that we do not stray to far from my original question. For those of you who are interested, I will be submitting another post later today, “Is Affirmative Action a Racist policy?”
My point was that there is no white quota at universities, while there is a black quota at many universities. And HBCUs may admit whites, but they sure as hell don’t admit whites who have test scores lower than their standards for admission.
As for going against “a corporation and a team of overpaid lawyers”, ever heard of the ACLU or (if you’re black) the NAACP?
