Every time I hear this phrase it drives me nuts. It really drives me crazy when I hear pundits or elected officials use this phrase.
I mean, some one correct me if I’m wrong but; racism is just racism right? If a black man beats the crap out of a white guy simply for being white; it’s racist, not reverse racism.
Yes, it is. Racism is racism. I find that people who claim they were the victims of reverse racism usually didn’t experience any racism and are trying to make some sort of phony false equivalence.
I think ‘reverse racism’ is more like ‘reverse psychology’ - in that if a black guy beats the crap out of a whitey, it’s because the whitey really wanted to be the one doin’ it.
True, but that isn’t how I usually hear “reverse racism” used. I tend to think of the term as somebody (often another minority) giving an extra advantage to someone else because they are a minority. e.g., a black office manager who hires only black employees might be guilty of “reverse racism.”
It may or may not be a valid concept, but I don’t think your OP example fits the usual definition in the first place.
Indeed you are correct, Wheelz.
That’s an interesting take on the term, Wheelz. You’re right that that’s what people are usually talking about when they cry reverse racism or reverse discrimination, but that’s not the only way the term is used. The first couple of Google hits for “reverse racism” include A hysterical Time article about schools teaching black superiority and associated historical nonsense, a 2005 ABC News story about the Justice Department going after a black Democrat in Mississippi, alleging he tried to keep white people from voting in a primary election, and an op-ed in a Bowdoin College paper citing the existence of minority student groups, hate crime laws, and preferential treatment in college admissions as reverse racism that “hurts America.” Granted that’s not a formal survey or anything.
When I hear the term “reverse racism,” it’s usually in the context of employment or college admissions. Two areas in which whites are often placed at a disadvantage to non-whites.
The term “reverse racism” implies to me that racism originates primarily from whites and when it comes from other races, it’s a just a reaction.
Like other races aren’t capable of being ignorant buffoons on their own account, right?
Yep, it’s stupid. Just like when people say “reverse rape” when they mean a guy was coerced to have sex by a girl. Racism is racism. Doesn’t matter who is the one initiating it. I think it actually perpetuates inequality, because one group gets the legitimate terminology but when another group does the same thing, the subset terminology is applied, putting them into a different class for the same type of actions.
“Reverse racism” sounds like it implies that there’s a direction that racism is supposed to go.
I’ve never heard that one, and I’d be happier if I still hadn’t.
Not necessarily where it is supposed to go, just where it is usually seen as going. Traditionally, “racism” means “white racism”. I can be as pedantic as anyone else, and racism is racism, but “reverse racism” is meant to communicate special circumstances.
Regards,
Shodan
IIRC, the phrase first became popular during Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, a landmark SCOTUS case that ended quotas as a component of affirmative action. I don’t remember whether or not the phrase was used by either party or their lawyers, or made up by the media, but at the time it definitely meant “racial policies that hurt members of a racial majority, rather than a minority.”
Exactly. Sorry Mr. Applicant, we’ve got too many (your race) and need a (other race) instead. At least, that’s the way I understand it.
Yes, “reverse racism” is a stupid term.
When Koreans discriminate against Japanese, is that racism or reverse racism? Is it different from Koreans discriminating against Irish people? How about if it’s “white-on-white,” like a white New Yorker not wanting to give jobs to Italians?
They’re all just racism.
In Western culture at least, the Irish and Italians are considered part of the same race (today), and ditto the Japanese and Koreans. So that wouldn’t be considered racism at all. Although it’s possible other cultures have a different view of that.
Another vote for stupid. At least call it “msicar” and get cuteness points to compensate.
Whenever any ‘reverse’ term is mentioned, a big >beep<beep<beep truck sound goes off in my head. Reverse garbage, reverse psychology, reverse racism…
All ‘reverse’ labels needs to back up and be a verb, not an adjective.
I think “reverse racism” has to do with the mindset of the accused. It’s not just a matter of the tables being turned, i.e. the traditional oppressor being oppressed. To me it specifically means someone who is trying not to be a racist, but in the process goes to far and ends up being unfair to someone else. An example would be a white manager being so worried about not being racist that he subconsciously overlooks a flaw in a black candidate, and ends up hiring him over someone more qualified. Used to describe this situation, I don’t think it’s a stupid phrase: the problem isn’t that the manager is racist, it’s that he’s AFRAID OF BEING racist.
That said, I’ll accept that the phrase is frequently used to describe a different type of situation, in which case it is pretty meaningless.
I don’t mind the term. I think it is reasonably meant to be taken as “racism, but conferring advantage and disadvantage in the directions opposite to the usual”. It is a plausibly short and well understood way of naming this phenomenon which otherwise has no short name.
Besides, “reverse” does not mean “the opposite of” or “the absence of”. In a car, “reverse gear” is one of the gears. A “reverse flow” is still a flow. To “reverse the charges” still means there is somebody being charged. And so forth.