3 ms·

The quote says there are different existing definitions of racism. I agree with that statement. I don't agree that your definition of racism is useful to discu

by effie 6y ago

The quote says there are different existing definitions of racism. I agree with that statement. I don't agree that your definition of racism is useful to discussion. It is a redefinition that confuses people into false and harmful beliefs, such as the idea that "people of oppressed minority race cannot be racial oppresors" or the idea that "an action/belief against white majority cannot be racist".

eesmith 6y ago
While you don't agree with the quote about how the scholarly definition requires an imbalanced power structure. What are the false and harmful beliefs? More specifically, what are some examples of an oppressed minority race becoming racial oppressors while still being subordinate in the power structure? How are they able to oppress with little political and economic power to do the oppression? What are examples of where it's important to say that an action against a white majority is "racist" when we cannot equally well say it's "racially discriminatory" or "racially bigoted" or other terms? Yes, there are many terms with differing definitions. We need only look at the differing definitions and understanding of what "rape" means. (Or the "evolution is only a theory" crowd.) But that doesn't mean (going way back to how I entered this thread) that it's correct to describe this more scholarly-based interpretation as 'the good old "you can't be racist towards white people" mantra'.
- effie 6y ago
  > what are some examples of an oppressed minority race becoming racial oppressors while still being subordinate in the power structure? If minority is a requirement, then some examples are: 1) Jewish Nazi collaborators killing Jews, 2) Black gangsters killing black people 3) black/latin-american SJW agents manipulating authorities for more discrimination and cancelling of their white enemies. > How are they able to oppress with little political and economic power to do the oppression? In cases 1),3) by having elevated power granted and supported by even more powerful groups. In case 2) they are organized violent people with guns - they have substantial power.
  - eesmith 6y ago
    [I haven't repeated this disclaimer recently enough. "Race" is a sociological construct with no biological meaning.] 1) Apartheid South Africa gave special status to Japanese people - honorary whites. This doesn't mean that the Japanese people could control their own status; it was a special status given to them by the white supremacists who wanted Japanese trade deals. Similarly, your 1) is for people were granted special privileges by the racist Christian Germans because of the services rendered for the racist power structure. But the racist power originated from those Christian Germans, not Jewish Germans. So, great, you've discovered that some black slaves avoided whippings by helping their white slave masters keep the other slaves in line. With as much sarcasm as I can muster: If only those black slaves hadn't been so racist. 2) How is this racism, any more than white gangsters killing white people? So if a black business owner shortchanges a black customer, that's also racism? 3) Are you effing kidding me? Everyone who is outraged at, angry with, or otherwise against the police violence against black people is an SJW. I am an SJW. 60% of Americans believe that ’Racism is built into American society. The assumption of white superiority pervades schools, business, housing, and government.’ according to a recent Yahoo News/YouGov poll. 52% agree that "President Trump is a racist." The majority of Americans are SJWs. If you are not outraged .. why not? Drop the nonsensical "SJW" rhetorical label. Demand social justice and equality. Now, back to 3) By "example" I don't mean some abstract story. Because I remember the lying stories Republicans used about black welfare queens in order to harness good old American racism to shrink our social safety net. "Agents"? How sinister! You know you could have left it as "SJWs", right? Your terms have been so over-used by right-wing extremists that they have acquired new meanings. Your "more discrimination" comes across like those people who insist that "feminism" means not "gender equality in the public sphere" but wrongly that "women should be in charge, and men should be hated." While your "cancelling" bring to mind all those people who think "cancel culture" means "no one expressing bigoted ideas should ever have to face consequences."
    - effie 6y ago
      I provided an answer to your question. I did not claim those are examples of minority race being racist. Such examples can be found as well, if we change the target group to be a different race. Nazi Germany (whose population became oppressed minority in Europe after being defeated in WW I) was becoming more racist towards most of the European nations south and east of them (majority) - including Slavic nations, Romas and others. More recent example, after WW II, Israeli settlers (most of which are Jews, an historically oppressed minority) became racist towards Palestinians (majority). > Everyone who is outraged at, angry with, or otherwise against the police violence against black people is an SJW. That's another misunderstanding of terms on your part. Almost everybody who saw that video and other police transgressions since then was disgusted by those policemen actions and are against such police brutality. That includes many racists, bigots, right-wingers, libertarians, traditional left, progressives and others not so easily categorizable political agents. That does not make them SJW's. "Social Justice Warrior" now has a very specific pejorative and derogative meaning: a vocal activist pushing and fighting for ideology of political correctness, for positive discrimination, favouritism of people of minority groups, limiting freedom of expression by policing words and inventing and enforcing new words, and generally using any means available, including racist or bigoted or factually incorrect or logically flawed arguments about race, power, history or biology. They are very attention-seeking and uppity. They care more about winning rhetorical arguments and political battles than about being right and fair. People who really care about society and people of all races/groups having their fair part in society are very different from that. They do not try to annoy, divide or cancel people of other groups, they do not push ideology, instead they try to work with those people towards common goals.

by effie 6y ago

eesmith 6y ago

While you don't agree with the quote about how the scholarly definition requires an imbalanced power structure. What are the false and harmful beliefs? More specifically, what are some examples of an oppressed minority race becoming racial oppressors while still being subordinate in the power structure? How are they able to oppress with little political and economic power to do the oppression? What are examples of where it's important to say that an action against a white majority is "racist" when we cannot equally well say it's "racially discriminatory" or "racially bigoted" or other terms? Yes, there are many terms with differing definitions. We need only look at the differing definitions and understanding of what "rape" means. (Or the "evolution is only a theory" crowd.) But that doesn't mean (going way back to how I entered this thread) that it's correct to describe this more scholarly-based interpretation as 'the good old "you can't be racist towards white people" mantra'.

effie 6y ago
> what are some examples of an oppressed minority race becoming racial oppressors while still being subordinate in the power structure? If minority is a requirement, then some examples are: 1) Jewish Nazi collaborators killing Jews, 2) Black gangsters killing black people 3) black/latin-american SJW agents manipulating authorities for more discrimination and cancelling of their white enemies. > How are they able to oppress with little political and economic power to do the oppression? In cases 1),3) by having elevated power granted and supported by even more powerful groups. In case 2) they are organized violent people with guns - they have substantial power.
- eesmith 6y ago
  [I haven't repeated this disclaimer recently enough. "Race" is a sociological construct with no biological meaning.] 1) Apartheid South Africa gave special status to Japanese people - honorary whites. This doesn't mean that the Japanese people could control their own status; it was a special status given to them by the white supremacists who wanted Japanese trade deals. Similarly, your 1) is for people were granted special privileges by the racist Christian Germans because of the services rendered for the racist power structure. But the racist power originated from those Christian Germans, not Jewish Germans. So, great, you've discovered that some black slaves avoided whippings by helping their white slave masters keep the other slaves in line. With as much sarcasm as I can muster: If only those black slaves hadn't been so racist. 2) How is this racism, any more than white gangsters killing white people? So if a black business owner shortchanges a black customer, that's also racism? 3) Are you effing kidding me? Everyone who is outraged at, angry with, or otherwise against the police violence against black people is an SJW. I am an SJW. 60% of Americans believe that ’Racism is built into American society. The assumption of white superiority pervades schools, business, housing, and government.’ according to a recent Yahoo News/YouGov poll. 52% agree that "President Trump is a racist." The majority of Americans are SJWs. If you are not outraged .. why not? Drop the nonsensical "SJW" rhetorical label. Demand social justice and equality. Now, back to 3) By "example" I don't mean some abstract story. Because I remember the lying stories Republicans used about black welfare queens in order to harness good old American racism to shrink our social safety net. "Agents"? How sinister! You know you could have left it as "SJWs", right? Your terms have been so over-used by right-wing extremists that they have acquired new meanings. Your "more discrimination" comes across like those people who insist that "feminism" means not "gender equality in the public sphere" but wrongly that "women should be in charge, and men should be hated." While your "cancelling" bring to mind all those people who think "cancel culture" means "no one expressing bigoted ideas should ever have to face consequences."
  - effie 6y ago
    I provided an answer to your question. I did not claim those are examples of minority race being racist. Such examples can be found as well, if we change the target group to be a different race. Nazi Germany (whose population became oppressed minority in Europe after being defeated in WW I) was becoming more racist towards most of the European nations south and east of them (majority) - including Slavic nations, Romas and others. More recent example, after WW II, Israeli settlers (most of which are Jews, an historically oppressed minority) became racist towards Palestinians (majority). > Everyone who is outraged at, angry with, or otherwise against the police violence against black people is an SJW. That's another misunderstanding of terms on your part. Almost everybody who saw that video and other police transgressions since then was disgusted by those policemen actions and are against such police brutality. That includes many racists, bigots, right-wingers, libertarians, traditional left, progressives and others not so easily categorizable political agents. That does not make them SJW's. "Social Justice Warrior" now has a very specific pejorative and derogative meaning: a vocal activist pushing and fighting for ideology of political correctness, for positive discrimination, favouritism of people of minority groups, limiting freedom of expression by policing words and inventing and enforcing new words, and generally using any means available, including racist or bigoted or factually incorrect or logically flawed arguments about race, power, history or biology. They are very attention-seeking and uppity. They care more about winning rhetorical arguments and political battles than about being right and fair. People who really care about society and people of all races/groups having their fair part in society are very different from that. They do not try to annoy, divide or cancel people of other groups, they do not push ideology, instead they try to work with those people towards common goals.