Other than obvious racists and what I call PC racists (basically being racist while using politically correct language) there are few who deny racism and its history. Indeed the opposite assumption is more common-some people seem to think everybody in the 1940s and 50s were KKK style bigots.
Maybe it’s not outright denial, but a lot of posters had a few toes over that line in this very thread. If you really believe there are few who deny racism, you haven’t been paying attention.
I don’t see this at all, either. This really seems like bass-ackwards attempt to defend and justify the idea that people are excessively sensitive to modern charges of racism.
Racism is alive and kicking, and YES there are a great many people who either pretend that they’re not, or are actually in denial about it.
Unfortunately a great many of them are of ethnicities that aren’t White Caucasian, so it doesn’t even get mentioned, let alone condemned .
It would make a nice change if those people who supposedly are crusading against racism came out and villified for example African American racism against say, Hispanics, or Thai racism against Phillipinos or whatever.
Or doesn’t that count ?
Are we only supposed to condemn racism that happens to be against YOUR ethnic group ?
Because it makes you feel good about yourself in the role of saintly martyr ?
Because its a stick to beat those more successful then yourself with ?
Because it gives you an excuse to yourself, for your own personal under performance in life ?
As another poster upthread said, “cry Wolf once to often and the people with no strong convictions either way will stop listening” , (Or words to that effect)
Its also the case that when we have heard someone saying that they don’t like Asian Indians because they’re untrustworthy and dirty, that when they start condemning white racism, white people tend to have absaloutley no sympathy for them, and give no credence to their claims.
Some of the more vehement attacks on white people’s supposed racism come across as actual race hatred in itself, plus the universal stereotyping of all whites as being racist is racist in itsself.
As in "Ah yes I know you THINK that you’re not racist but , you are though you don’t realise it because etc.etc.etc.
If a White person says that they are racist then they are racist .
But if a White person says they aren’t a racist, then they are still a racist but don’t know it.
Not “guilty until proven innocent.”
But guilty even WHEN proven innocent.
Nice little rant, but this part is confusing.
You first claim that racism by people of (unspecified) color is ignored by white folks, yet here you seem to be complaining that people who display racism toward someone who is not black are ignored as racist when they attack whites.
(I have not actually seen examples of the sort of vague claims you have made in your post and the “all whites and only whites are racist” trope is routinely scorned, here, on the few occasions it has been posted, but I am just not sure what you are saying in this instance.)
You understood more of it than I did.
Yes it always seems to touch a few raw nerves, if you dare mention that there are probably as many racists in other ethnicities, as there are amongst White Caucasians.
The White racists are scum, just as are other racists.
Except that non White racists tend to either be blind to their own racism, or think that somehow the term doesn’t, in fact can’t, apply to them.
I’ve put this as simply and easily as I can, so sorry; if you are unable to understand it then I can’t help you any further.
In that post, you explained it quite clearly. In the previous one, you explained it like you’d been sniffing glue.
I’m still not really sure what your point is. Pretty much everyone thinks all racism is bad, other than people who are actually racist. Non-white racists probably don’t think their racism is bad, but that’s because they’re racists. White racists don’t think their racism is bad either, because they’re racists.
If you want to vilify racism in all its forms, feel free. I’ve got no problems with that.
If you think it doesn’t gets called out, I’m quite happy to say it does. Check out cities in states that share a border with Mexico. There’s plenty of racism between Blacks and Hispanics. It gets called out, too. And in Houston, there’s a significant Vietnamese community, and there’s certainly at least some minimal racial tension there, too.
Los Angeles? There was quite a bit of local hubbub over a bit of what is commonly known as Koreatown with local Bangladeshis. Not much violence, so not much national press, but it does show racial tensions exist between non-white groups in large cities. And a lot of people ended up looking bad over it.
It doesn’t get much national press because there are few cases where it gets to the point somebody is killed over it. But it does get local and state press. Now, when a Korean drags a random Bangladeshi by pick up truck in LA due solely on the basis of race (and has people defend the actions to boot), I’d imagine we’d hear much more about it.
I think it is true that most white Americans of that period took it as an established fact that “negroes” were at least slightly mentally inferior to whites by heredity. I’ve read on this Board that many whites supported the Civil Rights movement for just that reason – because they thought it unjust to take advantage of inferior people, which Jim Crow was doing.
Really? Can you point to an actual claim that has actually been attacked, that all groups include racists? (I do address this issue below.)
Here, you appear to be getting closer to a factual statement, although the evidence hardly supports your broad claim. There are, in fact, non-whites who have made the claim that racism can only occur among the group in power. The people who make such claims, however, do not appear to be anything more than a tiny, if sometimes loud, group among their own people. Certainly, anyone who has made such a silly claim on the SDMB has been pretty thoroughly ripped apart by the majority of posters, regardless of the other views among that majority of posters on race or racism.
There is a trope among one segment of black activists that only The Man can be racist. It may exist among other groups, as well, but they are certainly not sufficiently well-known for me to have heard of them. In general, however, the claim that only whites can be racist, when posted on the SDMB, is posted most often by white posters attempting to portray themselves as some sort of racial martyrs.
Black-on-[other ethnic group] racism has been well identified for years, with specific reports regarding Asian immigrant targets being published in regards to Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles and regarding Hispanic groups in Texas and Southern California.
To claim that there is a general attitude among some unidentified segment of the population, (with an implication that it is widespread among one or another political or ethnic group), that all racism emanates from whites is simply not true. As noted, such claims are generally made in failed attempts at irony by whites who need to feel that they are persecuted in the same manner that certain Christian groups need to believe that they are persecuted in the U.S.
I’d be the first to own up to posting under the influence on occasion, but I can assure you, hand on heart, that my previous was not posted with my blood stream compromised by alcohol or any other recreational drug, including adhesives !
This is not some outrageous world view; it’s a different definition of “racism”. The reasoning is that it is not so important that I hate you* for being black as it is that I would not be arrested/tried/convicted/imprisoned for beating you up. Or, more mundanely, significantly less likely to hire you or your family.
No, it really isn’t. People of “that period” understood all about socio-economic influences and self-fulfilling prophecy, and trying to catch more flies with honey.
People of that era (when Negro was the polite term, as Colored & Black were deemed to be divisive) knew that people who were denied accessed to good education and jobs were at a cultural and personal as well as financial disadvantage.
People also tried to give people an excuse to step outside of their culture and away from racism. I don’t know if that worked.
People of that era knew institutionalized racism was wrong and wanted to stop it.
- “You” being used generically; I don’t have you for any reason.
It is not a different definition of racism; it is simply semantic gamesmanship. There are any number of ways to note that the majority has, (and has often abused), the power inherent in social discrepancies. Claiming that racism can only be a trait of the powerful, however, is merely a silly way to excuse racist behavior by the less powerful by pretending that they can’t really be racist. Any word games that allows someone to claim that Louis Farrakhan and his lieutenants do not exhibit racist behavior is inherently dishonest and is worthless as a definition.
If one wishes to make the point that in a society with strong racist elements, the powerful have more ability to wield their racism in harmful ways, that is a point that can easily (if tautologically) be made without pretending that only the powerful are actually racist.
In my experience, most racists of any color will claim that their views aren’t racist, for a variety of reasons. Very few people are willing to own the label “racist.”
I’ve always felt that racism from oppressed people towards their racist oppressors is still racist, just “less bad/more understandable”. I went to an all black school for a few years which was the first place I ever heard someone say “A black man can’t be racist”. I disagree with the wording but I understand the thought behind it. Outdated thinking but it’s not bizarro.
One of my most vivid childhood memories is of my dad being cut off in traffic by some idiot, looking over, and saying, “of course, he’s black.”
This from a man who had bricks thrown at him when he first arrived in the UK, accompanied by shouts of “go home, Paki” and the like.
It was the first time I thought of my dad as a douche. Sad day.
If you are unsympathetic to the plights of slave/minority people 100+ years ago, are you a racist?
Are you a racist if you feel that affirmative action isn’t exactly fair or righteous?
btw, some of my best friends are black…
Not necessarily. But it doesn’t prove you aren’t, either. Neither has a lot to do with the main arguments in the thread.
But that’s rather not the point of the thread, which is there’s a high correlation between racists and those who claim racism is an overblown problem in the US or outright deny that racism exists in the US.
Good for you. :rolleyes:
I’m not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that if you are a white American living in the mid-1800s and are unsympathetic to the plight of black slaves? Or a person living today?
I’m a black person living today, and I’m not “sympathetic” to the plight of black slaves of that era. Being dead, they no longer exist and have no use for sympathy.
if you’re a white American of that era, know about the plight of black slaves, and are sympathetic, then you are either a racist or an asshole. (It’s possible to be one without being the other.)
That would depend on what you understand affirmative action to be.
No, it is not semantic gamesmanship, it is two different but not unrelated issues.
-
Individuals who have preconceived and typically unfavorable opinions about people of a different racial ancestry.
-
A system of economic, political, and social structures that promote the well being of people of one racial ancestry over those of (an) other(s).
These two issues have different causes, mechanisms, and effects. They are different.