Racism

[Blue Nadir]

But the critical issue was that the child was taken from the family because he was "too good" for them. They were black and the child was white, so must be properly raised by good white folk ! This was back in the same sort of time frame as Sandra.

It makes a whole lot of sense that the child resulted from a Cape Coloured couple - plenty of throwback genetics and variation in traits there. But I doubt it was because the child was "too good" for them. The Areas Act(?) prohibited different races living together. Therefore, a "white" child would not be allowed, according to law, to live/grow up in a "Coloured area/township". It is as simple and as complicated as that. Sad thing is that such a "tainted" child would never have been fully accepted by any strongly political/indoctrinated white community.

[Fuzzbucket]

It makes a whole lot of sense that the child resulted from a Cape Coloured couple - plenty of throwback genetics and variation in traits there. But I doubt it was because the child was "too good" for them. The Areas Act(?) prohibited different races living together. Therefore, a "white" child would not be allowed, according to law, to live/grow up in a "Coloured area/township". It is as simple and as complicated as that. Sad thing is that such a "tainted" child would never have been fully accepted by any strongly political/indoctrinated white community.

But that's what the Area Act was all about. Whites were BETTER and lived in the better areas.

[Blue Nadir]

But that's what the Area Act was all about. Whites were BETTER and lived in the better areas.

Only half true. Divide and conquer. If you keep the different races apart, you can poison them against each other and stay in power. There were and still are a lot less whites, so resources (space, services, etc) could be allocated more generously per person if you only worried about whites as the old regime did.

 

I would even go as far to say that blacks are worse off now than they were under Apartheid. The Apartheid government saw blacks as inferior and incapable of caring for themselves, so although amenities were of lower quality, they were still provided. The new regime has very little sympathy for blacks - they were given their freedom and they now have to graft for themselves. Precious little has changed for the majority of black people in this country. Quality of services** has not improved, and too many promises have been made in the meantime that require the government's resources.

 

**= The Western Cape province where the initial open toilets were investigated is a Democratic Alliance (the main opposition party) stronghold.

 

EDIT:

Oh and I just realised that folks might not know what we mean by "open toilets". I kid you not... --> Click

Edited May 18, 2013 by Blue Nadir

[Obscure_Trash]

And using 'colourism' or 'institutional racism' is great as a way of refining terms when you are talking in those circles. But that wasn't what we were talking about, was it? We were talking about the insistance of some that the root word, 'racism', be redefined itself to refer only to discrimination backed by power. *That* is what I am saying is wrong. By all means use new terms to refine specifics. By all means use compound words (institutional racism) to describe which particular part of the whole you are speaking of. But narrowing the original word so that it no longer covers what it once did - and doing it *purely* for the benefit of those who do discuss social sciences, and not the general public - is something I am very against.

 

Racism is discrimination motivated by a persons race.

 

That is the end of it. History and political power have no place in that definition. And shouldn't do. Other words can be used, refining terms can be added, but that definition, at it's base, should not be changed because of a political agenda.

Then I guess we just disagree here. *shrug* I just can no longer see prejudice or discrimination against whites as racism. It's prejudice or discrimination. And I still don't see that as contradicting my position on words and their meanings. x3 Racism never should have included discrimination against whites, anyway, IMO.

[AngelKitty]

But narrowing the original word so that it no longer covers what it once did - and doing it *purely* for the benefit of those who do discuss social sciences, and not the general public - is something I am very against.

 

Racism is discrimination motivated by a persons race.

 

That is the end of it. History and political power have no place in that definition. And shouldn't do. Other words can be used, refining terms can be added, but that definition, at it's base, should not be changed because of a political agenda.

I agree with this. It's like saying sexism against men doesn't exist. Just because one is of an oppressor class doesn't mean you can't be racist/sexist against them, and I'm speaking as a pretty hardcore feminist here. That racism/sexism does not have the same ramifications when directed against an oppressor than it does against someone who is a member of an oppressed group, though.

 

I've seen the argument "the dictionary one is a lie because it's written by white men"

 

Funny thing about that is, the "racism = power + prejudice" argument was written by a white woman.

Edited May 19, 2013 by AngelKitty

[Syaoransbear]

Then I guess we just disagree here. *shrug* I just can no longer see prejudice or discrimination against whites as racism. It's prejudice or discrimination. And I still don't see that as contradicting my position on words and their meanings. x3 Racism never should have included discrimination against whites, anyway, IMO.

But it's prejudice and discrimination due to their race, which is what racism is. I really don't understand your viewpoint at all....

[KageSora]

Then I guess we just disagree here. *shrug* I just can no longer see prejudice or discrimination against whites as racism. It's prejudice or discrimination.

Racism is a type of discrimination and/or prejudice, IMO. Sexism is another type. Homophobia is a type, etc.

 

Racism is used to clarify that the discrimination and/or prejudice is specifically targeting race instead of sexual orientation or gender identity or economic class or physical sex, etc.

 

At least, that's how I've always used -isms.

[TikindiDragon]

Then I guess we just disagree here. *shrug* I just can no longer see prejudice or discrimination against whites as racism. It's prejudice or discrimination. And I still don't see that as contradicting my position on words and their meanings. x3 Racism never should have included discrimination against whites, anyway, IMO.

I guess we'll have to, becuase I simply cannot accept where you are coming from.

 

To me it's as Angelkitty said - it makes no more sense to say that whites cannot be the victims of racist attacks than it does to say that men cannot be victims of domestic violence.

[Fuzzbucket]

I guess we'll have to, becuase I simply cannot accept where you are coming from.

 

To me it's as Angelkitty said - it makes no more sense to say that whites cannot be the victims of racist attacks than it does to say that men cannot be victims of domestic violence.

I'm with you. Racism is discrimination/prejudice/bullying/whatever against any other person because of their race. Whatever that race may be.

 

The analogy with husband beaters is very good There are also parent-beating children !

[Shienvien]

I guess we'll have to, because I simply cannot accept where you are coming from.

Neither can I... Saying that whites cannot experience racism is something I have thus far only seen coming from people who deliberately use it to justify racism towards whites (which, for me, makes the statement itself inherently racist and hence alienates me from the speaker). I cannot see "whites do not experience racism" as anything but a deeply offensive claim (which will evoke negative response accordingly). ...Mind you, there are places where whites are the minority and actually get the worst of it. The world is not the US.

 

For me, racism is discrimination based on race, and that is it, no matter who it is against.

[Nectaris]

Neither can I... Saying that whites cannot experience racism is something I have thus far only seen coming from people who deliberately use it to justify racism towards whites (which, for me, makes the statement itself inherently racist and hence alienates me from the speaker). I cannot see "whites do not experience racism" as anything but a deeply offensive claim (which will evoke negative response accordingly). ...Mind you, there are places where whites are the minority and actually get the worst of it. The world is not the US.

 

For me, racism is discrimination based on race, and that is it, no matter who it is against.

^This SO much. I firmly believe that the belief that whites can't experience racism is a form of prejudice in and of itself, and ignores so many situations in other countries it isn't funny.

[moddlord10]

let just say racism is very bad mostly by ignorant people who do think their race or religion or skin colour is better as the other race.

[AngelKitty]

I would like to re-bring up Kiera Wilmot and again beg your action once more: http://raniakhalek.com/2013/05/02/prosecut...little-brother/ The state attorney who is charging 16 yo Kiera Wilmot with two felony charges having to do with having and discharging a weapon on school grounds due to a science experiment gone wrong where luckily no one was hurt, also decided not to charge 13 yo Tyler Richardson, who shot and killed his 10 year old brother with a BB gun. The state attorney made the right decision in one of these cases.

 

A happy update on this case: not only did they drop the charges, she's been given a full scholarship to the US Space Academy.

 

This made me unspeakably happy.

[soupnazi]

Neither can I... Saying that whites cannot experience racism is something I have thus far only seen coming from people who deliberately use it to justify racism towards whites (which, for me, makes the statement itself inherently racist and hence alienates me from the speaker). I cannot see "whites do not experience racism" as anything but a deeply offensive claim (which will evoke negative response accordingly). ...Mind you, there are places where whites are the minority and actually get the worst of it. The world is not the US.

 

For me, racism is discrimination based on race, and that is it, no matter who it is against.

It's thinking the word should be defined differently, not thinking that white folk can't get attacked because they're white.

 

Personally, I view it in a "what definition is more useful" sort of way; white folk being discriminated against because they're white is simply less common than black folk being discriminated against, and that combined with "prejudice + power" being a more complicated concept than "prejudice", I simply find using the word racism to mean discrimination based on race, with societal power, more useful.

 

Like, prejudice + power instances are a societal thing that are faced on a daily basis by most people who aren't white straight cis men, and it's a societal construct that needs to be dismantled and directly combated. Prejudice instances are isolated occurrences.

Edited May 24, 2013 by soupnazi

[KageSora]

It's thinking the word should be defined differently, not thinking that white folk can't get attacked because they're white.

 

Personally, I view it in a "what definition is more useful" sort of way; white folk being discriminated against because they're white is simply less common than black folk being discriminated against, and that combined with "prejudice + power" being a more complicated concept than "prejudice", I simply find using the word racism to mean discrimination based on race, with societal power, more useful.

 

Like, prejudice + power instances are a societal thing that are faced on a daily basis by most people who aren't white straight cis men, and it's a societal construct that needs to be dismantled and directly combated. Prejudice instances are isolated occurrences.

That's why I use "systematic/institutionalized racism" to mean "race-based prejudice + power" and just plain racism to mean "race-based prejudice".

[princesslunaa1211]

I hate racism as well. This is a human injustice that needs to be fixed immediately. Racism has been going for years now, and everyone thinks its cool. But it's not. We must try to end this, together, FOREVER :3 jk.

[7Deadly$ins]

I hate racism as well. This is a human injustice that needs to be fixed immediately. Racism has been going for years now, and everyone thinks its cool. But it's not. We must try to end this, together, FOREVER :3 jk.

Yep, everyone thinks it's cool.

[Syaoransbear]

It's thinking the word should be defined differently, not thinking that white folk can't get attacked because they're white.

 

Personally, I view it in a "what definition is more useful" sort of way; white folk being discriminated against because they're white is simply less common than black folk being discriminated against, and that combined with "prejudice + power" being a more complicated concept than "prejudice", I simply find using the word racism to mean discrimination based on race, with societal power, more useful.

 

Like, prejudice + power instances are a societal thing that are faced on a daily basis by most people who aren't white straight cis men, and it's a societal construct that needs to be dismantled and directly combated. Prejudice instances are isolated occurrences.

I think what is more common is general racism than institutional racism. Because if you define racism as only institutional racism, then someone from a race that isn't in power being racist to someone who is also from a race that isn't in power, then you, by your definition, can't call it racism. Racism basically becomes defined as when whites are racist towards anyone but whites, and I don't find that to be as common as all the other racism that goes on in the world. White people do not make up the majority of the population in the world, statistically there has to be more non-white vs white/non-white racism. I'd prefer if racism kept its general term instead of being forced to say "discrimination based on race". That definition is simply going to be used more often than institutional racism.

 

Then you also have the argument of whether or not something is institutional racism which will change based on location and time. The common definition of racism isn't dependent on any changing variables.

 

I like the current definition of racism, which means any discrimination based on race is racism. It's straightforward with no room for arguments. If you want to get specific, then add a specifying word like institutional. You don't make the base word more specific.

[soupnazi]

I think what is more common is general racism than institutional racism. Because if you define racism as only institutional racism, then someone from a race that isn't in power being racist to someone who is also from a race that isn't in power, then you, by your definition, can't call it racism.

 

No. My definition does not define itself based on the perpetrator, but the victim. In my definition, discrimination against white people is the only one that's not racism.

[TikindiDragon]

No. My definition does not define itself based on the perpetrator, but the victim. In my definition, discrimination against white people is the only one that's not racism.

You realise that, by the definition of most of us here, that is itself extremely racist? You are singling out one single race for different treatment after all.

 

Because you grew up in a predominantly white area, white people cannot suffer racism? Love to hear you say that to the people in Zimbabwe that are driven from their homes based purely on the white colour of their skin.

 

Honestly I feel that people who want to exclude whites from the definition of racism are every bit as bad as those who wanted to exclude blacks from the definition of 'person'.

[soupnazi]

Honestly I feel that people who want to exclude whites from the definition of racism are every bit as bad as those who wanted to exclude blacks from the definition of 'person'.

Um... why?

[Nectaris]

Um... why?

Because you are discriminating based on race, pure and simple. Don't forget that historically, people came up with reasons that "justified" racism towards blacks too.

 

I honestly find this trend disturbing. Shouldn't a case where someone was beaten up because they were X race be treated just as bad no matter what race the victim is? This whole, "people can't be racist against whites" trend strongly implies that it isn't as bad a thing when the victim is white. It may not be what you intend, but it is what you give off.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Nectaris

[Shienvien]

Because you are discriminating based on race, pure and simple. Don't forget that historically, people came up with reasons that "justified" racism towards blacks too.

This. I have almost exclusively heard the phrase "whites cannot experience racism" from people who are actively justifying racism against whites. From people who actually do think that mistreating whites because of their skin color is right.

[AngelKitty]

Honestly I feel that people who want to exclude whites from the definition of racism are every bit as bad as those who wanted to exclude blacks from the definition of 'person'.

 

I wouldn't go quite that far, there's a difference between personhood and race, but I agree with the sentiment.

 

White is a race, guys, not a lack thereof. Discriminating against someone because they are of the white race = racism against a white person. White people are not oppressed for being white, this does NOT mean one cannot be racist towards them. Once you start altering definitions of words like this it creates problems, or the potential for problems.

 

For all of you who say you can't be racist towards white people:

 

-I also see a lot of people with that sentiment saying that ONLY white people can be racist because everyone else is oppressed and racism = power + prejudice. Can people of one color be racist towards another, for example, can blacks be racist against Hispanics? According to the power + prejudice argument, they shouldn't be able to be, because both lack power under the white establishment.

 

-Can whites be racist against other whites? Whites have power, and they would be holding prejudice against themselves in this case, so wouldn't this be racism towards whites?

[soupnazi]

Because you are discriminating based on race, pure and simple.

But... not wanting a word to refer to a situation is vastly different from viewing someone as subhuman. Using a word in a different way is just so far apart from viewing someone as subhuman.

 

Don't forget that historically, people came up with reasons that "justified" racism towards blacks too.

I'm... not justifying discrimination against white people? I'm just saying that I don't think that it should be called racism?

 

I honestly find this trend disturbing. Shouldn't a case where someone was beaten up because they were X race be treated just as bad no matter what race the victim is?

Well, no, because we as a culture (and I'm basing this off of the US or the UK) justify and dismiss it when it's against people of color, but get up in arms about it when it's a white person. See: people trying to justify Trayvon Martin's murder, or people of color being primarily targeted by police--such as in New York, where they're vastly more likely to be searched than white people, even though white people statistically more often have something to hide. Discrimination against people of color permeates our entire society, and is something that needs to be widely stopped. Discrimination against white people are localized incidents in the context of our culture.

 

This whole, "people can't be racist against whites" trend strongly implies that it isn't as bad a thing when the victim is white.

How so?

 

It may not be what you intend, but it is what you give off.

Why?

 

I have almost exclusively heard the phrase "whites cannot experience racism" from people who are actively justifying racism against whites. From people who actually do think that mistreating whites because of their skin color is right.

And for me, it's been the opposite. Heck, I've actually most commonly seen "racism is racial prejudice and that's it" from people who justify discrimination against people of color. Does that mean it's what you're doing?

 

EDIT:

 

Once you start altering definitions of words like this it creates problems, or the potential for problems.

It's not really being altered. My preferred definition has been in use for quite some time, especially in academic areas.

 

Can people of one color be racist towards another, for example, can blacks be racist against Hispanics? According to the power + prejudice argument, they shouldn't be able to be, because both lack power under the white establishment.

Once again, the "power" element refers to the societal power against the victim, not the societal power of the perpetrator.

Edited May 24, 2013 by soupnazi