3 ms·
I don't think racial identity is commutive. People seem to think it's commutive where if you swap the values the classification of racism remains the same, and
by ScoobleDoodle 6y ago
I don't think racial identity is commutive. People seem to think it's commutive where if you swap the values the classification of racism remains the same, and I disagree with that. I don't fully understand it yet, but I think it's because our society on whole (in the United States) is sufficiently racist that it invalidates the premise of the substitution being commutive.
Where commutivity of addition is a + b = b + a.
Commuitivity of racism would be black person called a white person something bad for behavior x which is not equivalent to white person called black person something bad for same behavior x.
In this case "White men are so fragile and the mere presence of a Black person challenges every single thing in them" in response to Liam Neeson’s confession that he once roamed the streets looking for Black men to harm. Is not equivalent in a sense of the speaker being racist as "Black men are so fragile and the mere presence of a White person challenges every single thing in them" in response to (I'm making up a fictional situation to find some equivalent scenario) where let's say Denzel Washington saying a confession that he once roamed the streets looking for White men to harm. Do they have racial overtones? Yes. Are they equivalent? Absolutely not. The world Liam Neeson lives in is a white person's world where the dominant culture is white and a black person has to be searched for. He was caught in his mind demonizing black people and being racist searching for them to harm for it. In this hypothetical Denzel Washington is clearly a minority, not only targeted and put upon by white people but also other minorities. To find a white person, he only has to step outside and walk a block at best.
Even the construction of this sentence seems so ridiculous: "Black men are so fragile and the mere presence of a White person challenges every single thing in them". Black people have had to deal with racism and being the odd person out due to their race since they gained social awareness as a child. They've dealt with that BS long since being alive. White people like Liam Neeson "White men are so fragile and the mere presence of a Black person challenges every single thing in them" makes sense since he's encountered so few black people and he's built up this false belief about Black people from the racist media and his social group and he has to try to find black people to hurt.
:%s/white/mid_white/g
:%s/black/white/g
:%s/mid_white/black/g
is not valid.
- username90 6y agoA guy living in Japan who is not Japanese is greatly discriminated against, much worse relatively than black people in USA. However if said guy goes around in Japan beating up Japanese people I'd still say he was an insecure racist even though all institutions are against him.
- ScoobleDoodle 6y agoIn your example I would say his anger is reasonable even while it is being misdirected. I can empathize with that expression of anger even if it is ultimately misguided, counter productive, and ultimately probably feeding and perpetuating the racist stereo type. While the Japanese person in Japan being racist against this non-Japanese person and seeking him out to beat him up deserves no such empathy. This person would be the more misguided of the two and is the racist initiator. The two are simply not equivalent. I'm pointing out that people think it's an equivalence relation based upon commutivity of the races, and that is wrong. Racists say "see they're being racist too" as if they are equivalent. They aren't.
- happytoexplain 6y agoThanks, this general idea is inescapably true and constantly ignored in favor of trying to score points in shallow arguments. I just wanted to say that I still think the example is reasonably bannable, despite not being equivalent to a racially inverted example.