call comcast cable and this is what you hear:
presione uno para el español, or press two for english.
yes, it is possible to have minority rule.
Only idiots cannot punctuate correctly. This should read -
“I had a high school teacher ** WHO ** once said this. She said the reason why ** it is impossible for people to be racist against whites,** is that only white people are in the position of social power needed to ** enable them to act upon their racism **.”
Even with these changes, the point is bullshit. You can be racist anyway. Having the power to act upon your racist beliefs is a seperate issue.
Please stick to the point in the Op Muad’Dib.
Tarantuala you have added redundant phraseology to what has already been posted, that’s all. There is absolutely nothing grammatically wrong with what was originally posted.
Your assertion that a position (teacher) must be referred to as a who rather than a that is archaic. It is not a punctuation or grammatical error.
Adding ‘it is impossible for people to be racist against whites’ is redundant since this is the very topic of discourse.
Adding ‘enable them to act upon their racism’ is just plain wrong. Muad’Dib didn’t say that, nor do I believe he meant that. I feel he meant just what he said: that a position of social power is needed simply to meet the definition of racism. Without that position the ability to act is irrelevant. You have totally changed the sense what Muad’Dib posted.
Whether this addition adds anything to clarity is debatable. Everyone else seems to understand the post just fine without it. Either way there is absolutely nothing grammatically wrong with what was originally posted.
The grammer is wrong. I’m not even going to debate the issue with you - people get “who”, objects get “that”. Archaic my arse - learn to speak correctly.
If I added something to Muad’Dib’s post that he didn’t mean, he should thank me - without that which I added, his post is both grammatically incorrect and bullshit. The essence of racism is not in acting upon ones prejudices, it is in the fact that one is inherently racist - regardless of actions.
Take correction like an adult.
Hmm, guess the Prozak isn’t working. Maybe the dose needs to be increased. Can we find a doctor that can do that.
It’s not Prozac (with a “C” not a “K”) - it’s Guinness. And it is working - hence all the fucking aggression…
Only kidding. And I apologise for my ridiculously gruff post.
Sorry Blake.
Tarantula, be chill, man. Muad’Dib’s post could have been better written, but I understood what was intended on first reading, the typos you’ve made here will be treated equally as charitably.
Kicking it off in GQ is less than helpful, and should be avoided.
The OP is adequately answered by the observation that the white minority rulers of old apartheid South Africa couldn’t be racist by “racism can only be practiced by the majority” definition.
Tarantula, I started a new thread to discuss usage of that and who without further hijacking this one. It’s in the Pit because it is surely too lame for a Great Debate, not because I’m filled with furious and vengeful anger at you.
Back to the OP. I think we need to distinguish between racism, which is simply a hatred of those with a different culture or appearance and a character flaw of whoever feels it, and institutionalized racism, which is when one culture systematically oppresses another, often but not always a minority. It is possible for people of color to be racist against whites individually. This is plain and simple racism- not that dreadful and meaningless phrase “reverse racism.”
In America today, I think it is possible to have small-scale, informally institutionalized racism against whites. Cardinal’s example of a mostly black student body ostricizing or victimizing a white student is valid as institutionalized racism does not have to be codified into law. It can be de facto, as opposed to de juro.
From dictionary.com:
"rac·ism (n.) - 1) The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. 2) Discrimination or prejudice based on race. "
I tend to go with definition 1 here. That’s because we have the words “prejudice” and\or “bigoted” for definition 2. I may not like [insert ethnic type here] for whatever reason, but not think myself 'superior" to them.
But Muad’Dib didn’t even say this. He/She just told us about something their teacher had said. Probably you’ll say in this case it’s gramatically wrong because the present tense should have been switched to past for reported speech, but let’s do without being smartass here.
In any case, I personally agree with what Spanna said about the positive discrimination issue. You cannot discriminate a particular individual solely because the gender or race or whatever he happens to be used to be, or is, in the overall view, privileged. It would be discrimination anyway.
Racism, in its most neutral form, is a belief that certain people carry traits of attitude, intelligence, competence, etc. based on the supposed “race” to which they belong. (This does not have to be the commonly understood Three or Five Races of ancient ethnology: there are lots of people, for exampe, who hold that the Germanic “race” is inherently warlike or industrious or that Irish are predisposed to drinking and riotous behavior or that the [fill in your neighbor’s] group is inherently lazy.)
Racism in its more common form, holds that not only are there traits that are particular to each general group, but that (most frequently) one’s own group is clearly superior to any of the other groups that may be encountered.
At some point, after racism had entered the American idiom and was being used as a thoroughly negative term, various people decided that, since it meant “bad” things, only “bad” people should wear the label. For that reason, they tacked on some additional qualifiers, claiming that to be racist one must be able to wield oppressive power, for example.
It makes them feel better, but it is only valid when they use it among themselves because the word has not taken on that narrower definition among the populace. Louis Farrakhan and his minions are frequent users of the more limited definition. (This has the advantage for the Nation of Islam that they can be as classically racist as they like while denying that they are, indeed, racist.) There are a number of people who are not associated with or sympathetic to the Nation of Islam who have also begun using that narrower definiton. (I have encountered them most frequently, although not exclusively, among certain groups in universities and similar communities.)
Unfortunately for those who want to change the meaning of the word, they have not successfully made their case to the rest of us. There is nothing in the original meaning of the word–the meaning that continues in common usage among the majority of speakers of English–that allows for the narrower definition with the additional constraints of “oppression” and the like. When used outside the small groups who have created their own jargon, racism means simply attitudes toward others based on perceived race, generally exalting one’s own group and denigrating other groups.
I believe that anyone can be racist. But oppression does require power. In South Africa, the whites had money to make them powerful. In certain places in the US, minorities can outnumber whites so substantially as to make them more powerful. If your boss is black and he discrimates against you because you’re white, then he’s using his power to oppress you.
Perhaps the argument that minorities can’t be racist stems from the fact that more whites are in the position to be racially oppressive than minorities. Personally, it doesn’t matter squat if someone hurls a racial epithet at me, especially if that someone doesn’t have two nickels to rub together. Everyone can exchange racial epithets. Not just anyone can refuse to hire someone based on their color or legislate laws that unfairly target people of another race. People tend to look at who is most able to do these things when looking at race matters.
Apparently, the Black Panthers were equal-opportunity haters.
I also have a fine book called The Spook Who Sat By The Door . It’s long out of print, so good luck finding it. It concerns a Black Panthers-type group taking over America and waging war on white people. It’s just a little silly thinking about it nowadays, but back when it was published it was very close to becoming reality.
Well, actually what happened is that, along with other academic trends, people defined racism, sexism, anti-semitism, etc., structurally instead of individually…that “racism” isn’t just individual bigotry against another race, but an organized system of oppression by a society. So the model moves from, “X is a racist” to “America is a racist society”, and looks at the ways American society is set up around race.