5 ms·

Yes. When only whites can be racist, only whites can be caricatured.

emptysongglass 6y ago
Not only whites can be racist. Any race in power, anywhere, becomes the new "white man" when powers are tipped. There is nothing fundamental to your skin color: all of us bear the seeds of our future cruelty. And until we address desire and deconstitute it atom by atom, none of us will ever be free.
- Dig1t 6y ago
  I don't understand the need for the "in power" qualification. It specifically is saying that discrimination based on race is not racist unless they are the majority. So does this mean that if an asian man murders a black man, specifically because he is black, that this is not racism? I honestly don't get it.
  - bopbeepboop 6y ago
    It’s just a language game some racists invented to deny their racism. You don’t get it because it’s wrong.
  - nerdponx 6y ago
    I don't understand the need for the "in power" qualification. It specifically is saying that discrimination based on race is not racist unless they are the majority. In a time and place where a local hegemonic group has a history of bigotry towards and/or oppression of a local minority or disempowered group, it could be argued that the hegemonic group has a greater moral authority to be sensitive to the oppressed/disempowered group. I believe that's a big part of the moral reasoning that is applied in these cases. There is a logic to it that goes further and has more integrity than than "people just want to take other people down".
  - medicineman 6y ago
    >I honestly don't get it Because you are honest you wont get it.
  - madeofpalk 6y ago
    What it’s saying is that a huge part of the -isms is the imbalance of power and how that is abused.
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    Some people call any discrimination discrimination and systemic discrimination racism. Some people call any discrimination racism and don't talk much about systemic discrimination. People in group 2 think people in group 1 mean it's impossible to discriminate against someone in the majority. But they don't. People in group 1 think people in group 2 mean systemic discrimination doesn't exist. But not all of them do. Some people in group 2 say people in group 1 should come up with a new word for systemic discrimination. But people in group 1 don't bother because it wouldn't change what people believe.
  - anon_tor_12345 6y ago
    Why do people always get tripped up on this. Racism is institutional and prejudice is personal. No one is saying an arbitrary person can't be prejudiced - ask the right people and you'll get an earful about how prejudiced x ethnicity is against y ethnicity. But a powerless group can't be racist because they don't control any institutions; for example there's no coordinated group of black landlords that don't rent to Asians. Would there exist such a thing if there were enough black landlords? Maybe. No one is denying that anyone can be cruel and hateful. What people do deny is that certain ethnicities have the same means to enact that cruelty. Again I don't see how this isn't manifestly obviously true.
    - f1refly 6y ago
      > But a powerless group can't be racist because they don't control any institutions So when a black women walks up at you and punches you in the face because you're white and she hates white people that's not racist?
      - anon_tor_12345 6y ago
        I'm at a loss. You're basically asking me to repeat what I already wrote. The answer is yes that's not racist it's prejudiced.
        f1refly 6y ago
        Yes, I'm asking you to repeat it because what you're saying is absolutely insane and completely detached from the rest of the world. You might check the definition other people around you are using, I'll even give you a handy link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
        ModernMech 6y ago
        From your link, emphasis added: "Today, some scholars of racism prefer to use the concept in the plural racisms, in order to emphasize its many different forms that do not easily fall under a single definition. They also argue that different forms of racism have characterized different historical periods and geographical areas.[24] Garner (2009: p. 11) summarizes different existing definitions of racism and identifies three common elements contained in those definitions of racism. First, a historical, hierarchical power relationship between groups; second, a set of ideas (an ideology) about racial differences; and, third, discriminatory actions (practices).[13]" This is exactly what the OP is talking about -- they are pointing out that some forms of racism are worse than others, and one thing that makes one form of racism worse than other forms is when there's a power imbalance that historically has resulted in the oppression of one group. Two individuals in a marginalized group getting into a scuff over an issue of race is one kind of racism, yes, but the damage is localized between themselves. One group of people, from a position of power an authority, subjugating and oppressing another group of people over an issue of race is a completely different matter.
flippinburgers 6y ago
Discrimination based on race is racism regardless of who the perpetrator is.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Not only whites can be racist. Any race in power, anywhere, becomes the new "white man" when powers are tipped. There is nothing fundamental to your skin color: all of us bear the seeds of our future cruelty. And until we address desire and deconstitute it atom by atom, none of us will ever be free.

Dig1t 6y ago
I don't understand the need for the "in power" qualification. It specifically is saying that discrimination based on race is not racist unless they are the majority. So does this mean that if an asian man murders a black man, specifically because he is black, that this is not racism? I honestly don't get it.
- bopbeepboop 6y ago
  It’s just a language game some racists invented to deny their racism. You don’t get it because it’s wrong.
- nerdponx 6y ago
  I don't understand the need for the "in power" qualification. It specifically is saying that discrimination based on race is not racist unless they are the majority. In a time and place where a local hegemonic group has a history of bigotry towards and/or oppression of a local minority or disempowered group, it could be argued that the hegemonic group has a greater moral authority to be sensitive to the oppressed/disempowered group. I believe that's a big part of the moral reasoning that is applied in these cases. There is a logic to it that goes further and has more integrity than than "people just want to take other people down".
- medicineman 6y ago
  >I honestly don't get it Because you are honest you wont get it.
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  What it’s saying is that a huge part of the -isms is the imbalance of power and how that is abused.
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  Some people call any discrimination discrimination and systemic discrimination racism. Some people call any discrimination racism and don't talk much about systemic discrimination. People in group 2 think people in group 1 mean it's impossible to discriminate against someone in the majority. But they don't. People in group 1 think people in group 2 mean systemic discrimination doesn't exist. But not all of them do. Some people in group 2 say people in group 1 should come up with a new word for systemic discrimination. But people in group 1 don't bother because it wouldn't change what people believe.
- anon_tor_12345 6y ago
  Why do people always get tripped up on this. Racism is institutional and prejudice is personal. No one is saying an arbitrary person can't be prejudiced - ask the right people and you'll get an earful about how prejudiced x ethnicity is against y ethnicity. But a powerless group can't be racist because they don't control any institutions; for example there's no coordinated group of black landlords that don't rent to Asians. Would there exist such a thing if there were enough black landlords? Maybe. No one is denying that anyone can be cruel and hateful. What people do deny is that certain ethnicities have the same means to enact that cruelty. Again I don't see how this isn't manifestly obviously true.
  - f1refly 6y ago
    > But a powerless group can't be racist because they don't control any institutions So when a black women walks up at you and punches you in the face because you're white and she hates white people that's not racist?
    - anon_tor_12345 6y ago
      I'm at a loss. You're basically asking me to repeat what I already wrote. The answer is yes that's not racist it's prejudiced.
      - f1refly 6y ago
        Yes, I'm asking you to repeat it because what you're saying is absolutely insane and completely detached from the rest of the world. You might check the definition other people around you are using, I'll even give you a handy link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
        ModernMech 6y ago
        From your link, emphasis added: "Today, some scholars of racism prefer to use the concept in the plural racisms, in order to emphasize its many different forms that do not easily fall under a single definition. They also argue that different forms of racism have characterized different historical periods and geographical areas.[24] Garner (2009: p. 11) summarizes different existing definitions of racism and identifies three common elements contained in those definitions of racism. First, a historical, hierarchical power relationship between groups; second, a set of ideas (an ideology) about racial differences; and, third, discriminatory actions (practices).[13]" This is exactly what the OP is talking about -- they are pointing out that some forms of racism are worse than others, and one thing that makes one form of racism worse than other forms is when there's a power imbalance that historically has resulted in the oppression of one group. Two individuals in a marginalized group getting into a scuff over an issue of race is one kind of racism, yes, but the damage is localized between themselves. One group of people, from a position of power an authority, subjugating and oppressing another group of people over an issue of race is a completely different matter.

flippinburgers 6y ago

Discrimination based on race is racism regardless of who the perpetrator is.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]