6 ms·

It isn't "Reverse Racism", it is all Racism. Any race to any other race, it is Racism. "Reverse Racism" is as meaningless as "Square Circle".

gorjusborg 5y ago
I don't think meaningless is the right word. The right word is racist.
comboy 5y ago
Going with your analogy your comment seems more like "It isn't a square, it's a rectangle. 4 corners, two parallel sides, that's always a rectangle". Maybe explain what is your problem with distinguishing these two behaviors? Are you afraid that a fix would only be applied to a subgroup? Naming patterns makes communication more efficient.
- ramblerman 5y ago
  Not OP, but if we accept the common definition of racism as "prejudice or discrimination against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group" And then now define a new term, "reverse racism" to mean a better/lesser quality of racism based on which racial or ethnic group it originates from, you are being racist in your very definition. It is as ridiculous as a square circle.
  - darkerside 5y ago
    > better/lesser quality of racism This is the really questionable comment
  - comboy 5y ago
    Gee, it's some complicated meta game. I agree, this division is racist. But at the same time, if you are not thinking about the races, just about what's happening, the distinction is not racist, it's just a different pattern of behavior. To disconnect emotions something like: scientist first not including some outliers in the data set, but after having been scolded for that, adding a few random points here and there so that he's not accused of it again. Both bad, both fabricating data, but we can still talk about them naming them differently. That said, since racism is in the name of that subgroup, I can see parent comment's point more clearly now, and yes it makes sense, at least given that name.
  - criddell 5y ago
    You left off the last part of the definition: "typically one that is a minority or marginalized." The meaning of "racism" is evolving right now and the relative power of the two parties is becoming a more important component of the definition. I might be wrong about that, but it's my current understanding.
    - sshine 5y ago
      At the core, "racism" means: discrimination because of race. This happens very often because that race is also a minority. So much so that most experience of racism is also the experience of being discriminated for being a minority. That doesn't make racism against a majority in the wider population less racist. It just doesn't make it racism and not minority discrimination. The "reverse" of something that isn't strictly a logical statement could mean any number of things: is "reverse racism" positive discrimination? Is it the lack of discrimination because of race? Is it discrimination because of lack of racial identity? is it simply "msicar" (racism spelled backwards)? What one tries to say is: "Reverse racism" is supposed to mean "racist behavior towards a group of people that make out the majority of the population". That has a word: It's "racism". It unfortunately overlaps with the type of racism that happens on minorities, but there's nothing "reverse" about it. "Reverse" carries some undertone of "retributal", as in being racist back because of racist treatment... there's a whole can of worms of implied meaning here that is not well-intended or seeks to understand why people behave racist. Whereas if you use the term "racism" to describe this behavior, it's actually well-defined.
    - thatjoeoverthr 5y ago
      Certainly, some would like to define it that way. But one doesn’t have to go along with it. The rejected young man isn’t the powerful party in this anecdote. So, you’d have to put this “whites on top” canonical race hierarchy over the actual situation presented, as if whites are supreme categorically. One can also object to Americans’ canonical race hierarchy itself. No, one does not have to go along with this.
    - lobocinza 5y ago
      At it's peak less than 4% of Rhodesia population was white. Less than 8% of South Africa is white. Was apartheid and other policies morally justified? Because those there at the time certainly felt so (otherwise they wouldn't). This isn't evolution but evil taking form.
Chris2048 5y ago
That's if you assume the effect of "reverse". I'm quite happy we have a term for "racism, but against the (perceived cultural) norm" or "anti-majority racism" - which is indeed a type of racism. maybe "un-convential" would be a better word?
- rightbyte 5y ago
  What would you call the historical majority black Apartheid? Not "reverse racism" surely. The term is just bad. In this case, it could be called "race quotas" or something.
bregma 5y ago
The article read like it coiuld have been written by Jordan Peterson himself. "Reverse" racism is because it is describing the fact that straight white men can no longer rely on their sex and race and sexual orientation to help narrow the field of competitors for whatever they want. It's the reverse of racism, in which the field of competition is narrows to those without certain apparent traits or attributes. The reverse of racism, not racism pointed the other direction.
- rzz3 5y ago
  It sounds to me like the student was relying on his grades and intellect, and denied admission into the honors program solely due to his race and gender.
  - bregma 5y ago
    It sounds to me like the student did not get accepted into a highly competitive program and used his racial prejudice to come up with a racist target to blame. He adopted the null hypothesis that his lack of acceptance to the program was due to random chance alone. The evidence used to reject that null hypothesis consisted of some hand-picked samples from a subpopulation of applicants with whom he had social-networking contacts (and sure, he's got some friends who don't look like him, maybe even some of his best friends), further categorized by him and his collaborator subjectively into racial groups and the proxy metric of being on the dean's list, compiled into some regression numbers of unspecified strength. There are plenty of opportunities for skew and bias an the method of his research. If this study was robust enough, there would be plenty of parties interested enough that it would be a career-making, not career-breaking publication. The author of the piece simply wanted an anecdata to support his racist views, and if you're thinking "hell yeah, white guys gotta stand together to stop those people" you're exactly the base he's pandering to.
- rmbyrro 5y ago
  What about it was written by Peterson or not? We're discussing the ideas and the merit behind them. Let's have an intelligent discussion, rather than an ideological waste of time...
sinyug 5y ago
> It isn't "Reverse Racism", it is all Racism It is not that simple. I think of it as plain racism vs acceptable/approved/sanctioned racism. In the first case, you will have the politicians and media all talking about how bad this is. In the second case, the only response you will get from this crowd is a collective "meh."
- Yoric 5y ago
  In that case, why not call it "sanctioned racism"?
  - sinyug 5y ago
    > why not call it "sanctioned racism"? You should. The media won't, because it now becomes a loaded term. You can make fun of "reverse" racism, but not "sanctioned" racism. Sometimes I wonder whose side these so-called centrist/neutral or even expressly right-wing publications are on because they often present the weakest argument in favor of an issue that is all but ready for opponents to demolish.
  - yucky 5y ago
    >why not call it "sanctioned racism"? The preferred term in use seems to be "racial equity".
- zozbot234 5y ago
  The word is systemic racism. Because it's only "acceptable/approved/sanctioned" within some systemic power hierarchy. (If power differentials were not directly involved, one would rather define it as systemic prejudice and a factor behind systemic discrimination, which despite appearances is in fact a very strong claim as well. Much stronger than claims of 'racism' in an individual sense.)
amcoastal 5y ago
Sure. But there are different connotations and implications when someone is racist against a white person vs a black person (in America). Go to another country where another race is dominant and the standards and idea of racism change. Having specific adjectives to describe different contextual racism seems useful, as not all racism is equal. Reverse racism is not the best example of a great contextual adjective though, as its meaning wouldn't be obvious to non-Americans. Though it was obvious to you, so it at least did its job. Getting upset about the term itself though is a personal choice that should be examined.
- marliechiller 5y ago
  I respectfully disagree and would go far as to say that this attitude is counter productive to advancing beyond race. Any acceptance of racism should be shunned irrespective of which ethnic group is doing it. A persons characteristics should not dictate whether an action is more or less morally right.
  - amcoastal 5y ago
    You're assuming all discrimination based on race is wrong. Its obviously more nuanced than that, and requires more nuanced language. Unless you think there's a giant stone pad floating in the universe and the 11th commandment on it is 'thall shall not be racist"
    - Sebb767 5y ago
      > You're assuming all discrimination based on race is wrong. Counter question: Which discrimination based on race is right?
      - amcoastal 5y ago
        Your bad faith question implies there could only be one answer to this question, which I would hope you know is untrue, as the answer clearly relies on the authors/readers ethical system, which are relative. For instance, one could imagine a utilitarian ethical system where you could discriminate against someone's race and cause a good much larger than the 'bad' of discrimination. OTOH, someone could have a reductionist moral system and just think 'racial discrimination = bad'. I know which side of the fence I fall on.
rmbyrro 5y ago
Yet, this professor would have certainly given good advice to his student, providing this story was true. I don't know if this is hypothetical or not.
jcuenod 5y ago
When I first encountered this term, I had the same reaction and it seems like a reasonable response but (like one of the replies you've received) you're assuming your definition of racism. The definition that's usually used in sociology involves structural power and, perhaps most importantly, white supremacy. Particularly the latter point means that the term racism, in the academic context, always refers to power dynamics that flow out of white supremacy. There are still valid critiques (such as, arguably, unfalsifiablity) and, personally, I don't think the directionality built into the term help us as much as it hinders the conversation—especially given the divergence from the colloquial meaning of "racism". At the same time, though, systemic power is on the side of (certain) white people and the effects of discrimination are compounded by systemic power differentials. It seems important to bring that aspect of racism into the conversation.
- sva_ 5y ago
  > the term racism, in the academic context, always refers to power dynamics that flow out of white supremacy Pretty typical for Americans to make themselves the center of the definition of a basic term. Just because some academics redefine a term, doesn't make someone else's argument invalid.
  - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
    I'm not sure academics redefined it so much as the colloquial usage changed. "Racist" was originally used as an alternative form of "racialist," without a negative connotation, to describe people who believed in the superiority of a particular race. These people were white (supremacist) Americans. Academics still use the word in a similar way. Not my field (and please correct me if I'm wrong), but I believe there are other terms like "racial discrimination" that didn't come from white supremacist thought, and that can be used in academia to describe mistreatment of white people on the basis of their skin.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  The word "racism" strictly refers to prejudice and/or discrimination in any context where systemic power differentials are involved. White supremacy might definitely be a relevant power differential, but there are others that can be just as relevant, such as the very real power held by admissions bureaucracies in academia. This does mean that, yes, so-called 'reverse' racism in such contexts, particularly when accompanied by systemic prejudice against e.g. whites and asians (such as an implied theory that they have less "character", "well-roundedness" or "diversity" than other groups) is in fact racism.

gorjusborg 5y ago

I don't think meaningless is the right word. The right word is racist.

comboy 5y ago

Going with your analogy your comment seems more like "It isn't a square, it's a rectangle. 4 corners, two parallel sides, that's always a rectangle". Maybe explain what is your problem with distinguishing these two behaviors? Are you afraid that a fix would only be applied to a subgroup? Naming patterns makes communication more efficient.

ramblerman 5y ago
Not OP, but if we accept the common definition of racism as "prejudice or discrimination against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group" And then now define a new term, "reverse racism" to mean a better/lesser quality of racism based on which racial or ethnic group it originates from, you are being racist in your very definition. It is as ridiculous as a square circle.
- darkerside 5y ago
  > better/lesser quality of racism This is the really questionable comment
- comboy 5y ago
  Gee, it's some complicated meta game. I agree, this division is racist. But at the same time, if you are not thinking about the races, just about what's happening, the distinction is not racist, it's just a different pattern of behavior. To disconnect emotions something like: scientist first not including some outliers in the data set, but after having been scolded for that, adding a few random points here and there so that he's not accused of it again. Both bad, both fabricating data, but we can still talk about them naming them differently. That said, since racism is in the name of that subgroup, I can see parent comment's point more clearly now, and yes it makes sense, at least given that name.
- criddell 5y ago
  You left off the last part of the definition: "typically one that is a minority or marginalized." The meaning of "racism" is evolving right now and the relative power of the two parties is becoming a more important component of the definition. I might be wrong about that, but it's my current understanding.
  - sshine 5y ago
    At the core, "racism" means: discrimination because of race. This happens very often because that race is also a minority. So much so that most experience of racism is also the experience of being discriminated for being a minority. That doesn't make racism against a majority in the wider population less racist. It just doesn't make it racism and not minority discrimination. The "reverse" of something that isn't strictly a logical statement could mean any number of things: is "reverse racism" positive discrimination? Is it the lack of discrimination because of race? Is it discrimination because of lack of racial identity? is it simply "msicar" (racism spelled backwards)? What one tries to say is: "Reverse racism" is supposed to mean "racist behavior towards a group of people that make out the majority of the population". That has a word: It's "racism". It unfortunately overlaps with the type of racism that happens on minorities, but there's nothing "reverse" about it. "Reverse" carries some undertone of "retributal", as in being racist back because of racist treatment... there's a whole can of worms of implied meaning here that is not well-intended or seeks to understand why people behave racist. Whereas if you use the term "racism" to describe this behavior, it's actually well-defined.
  - thatjoeoverthr 5y ago
    Certainly, some would like to define it that way. But one doesn’t have to go along with it. The rejected young man isn’t the powerful party in this anecdote. So, you’d have to put this “whites on top” canonical race hierarchy over the actual situation presented, as if whites are supreme categorically. One can also object to Americans’ canonical race hierarchy itself. No, one does not have to go along with this.
  - lobocinza 5y ago
    At it's peak less than 4% of Rhodesia population was white. Less than 8% of South Africa is white. Was apartheid and other policies morally justified? Because those there at the time certainly felt so (otherwise they wouldn't). This isn't evolution but evil taking form.

Chris2048 5y ago

That's if you assume the effect of "reverse". I'm quite happy we have a term for "racism, but against the (perceived cultural) norm" or "anti-majority racism" - which is indeed a type of racism. maybe "un-convential" would be a better word?

rightbyte 5y ago
What would you call the historical majority black Apartheid? Not "reverse racism" surely. The term is just bad. In this case, it could be called "race quotas" or something.

bregma 5y ago

The article read like it coiuld have been written by Jordan Peterson himself. "Reverse" racism is because it is describing the fact that straight white men can no longer rely on their sex and race and sexual orientation to help narrow the field of competitors for whatever they want. It's the reverse of racism, in which the field of competition is narrows to those without certain apparent traits or attributes. The reverse of racism, not racism pointed the other direction.

rzz3 5y ago
It sounds to me like the student was relying on his grades and intellect, and denied admission into the honors program solely due to his race and gender.
- bregma 5y ago
  It sounds to me like the student did not get accepted into a highly competitive program and used his racial prejudice to come up with a racist target to blame. He adopted the null hypothesis that his lack of acceptance to the program was due to random chance alone. The evidence used to reject that null hypothesis consisted of some hand-picked samples from a subpopulation of applicants with whom he had social-networking contacts (and sure, he's got some friends who don't look like him, maybe even some of his best friends), further categorized by him and his collaborator subjectively into racial groups and the proxy metric of being on the dean's list, compiled into some regression numbers of unspecified strength. There are plenty of opportunities for skew and bias an the method of his research. If this study was robust enough, there would be plenty of parties interested enough that it would be a career-making, not career-breaking publication. The author of the piece simply wanted an anecdata to support his racist views, and if you're thinking "hell yeah, white guys gotta stand together to stop those people" you're exactly the base he's pandering to.
rmbyrro 5y ago
What about it was written by Peterson or not? We're discussing the ideas and the merit behind them. Let's have an intelligent discussion, rather than an ideological waste of time...

sinyug 5y ago

> It isn't "Reverse Racism", it is all Racism It is not that simple. I think of it as plain racism vs acceptable/approved/sanctioned racism. In the first case, you will have the politicians and media all talking about how bad this is. In the second case, the only response you will get from this crowd is a collective "meh."

Yoric 5y ago
In that case, why not call it "sanctioned racism"?
- sinyug 5y ago
  > why not call it "sanctioned racism"? You should. The media won't, because it now becomes a loaded term. You can make fun of "reverse" racism, but not "sanctioned" racism. Sometimes I wonder whose side these so-called centrist/neutral or even expressly right-wing publications are on because they often present the weakest argument in favor of an issue that is all but ready for opponents to demolish.
- yucky 5y ago
  >why not call it "sanctioned racism"? The preferred term in use seems to be "racial equity".
zozbot234 5y ago
The word is systemic racism. Because it's only "acceptable/approved/sanctioned" within some systemic power hierarchy. (If power differentials were not directly involved, one would rather define it as systemic prejudice and a factor behind systemic discrimination, which despite appearances is in fact a very strong claim as well. Much stronger than claims of 'racism' in an individual sense.)

amcoastal 5y ago

Sure. But there are different connotations and implications when someone is racist against a white person vs a black person (in America). Go to another country where another race is dominant and the standards and idea of racism change. Having specific adjectives to describe different contextual racism seems useful, as not all racism is equal. Reverse racism is not the best example of a great contextual adjective though, as its meaning wouldn't be obvious to non-Americans. Though it was obvious to you, so it at least did its job. Getting upset about the term itself though is a personal choice that should be examined.

marliechiller 5y ago
I respectfully disagree and would go far as to say that this attitude is counter productive to advancing beyond race. Any acceptance of racism should be shunned irrespective of which ethnic group is doing it. A persons characteristics should not dictate whether an action is more or less morally right.
- amcoastal 5y ago
  You're assuming all discrimination based on race is wrong. Its obviously more nuanced than that, and requires more nuanced language. Unless you think there's a giant stone pad floating in the universe and the 11th commandment on it is 'thall shall not be racist"
  - Sebb767 5y ago
    > You're assuming all discrimination based on race is wrong. Counter question: Which discrimination based on race is right?
    - amcoastal 5y ago
      Your bad faith question implies there could only be one answer to this question, which I would hope you know is untrue, as the answer clearly relies on the authors/readers ethical system, which are relative. For instance, one could imagine a utilitarian ethical system where you could discriminate against someone's race and cause a good much larger than the 'bad' of discrimination. OTOH, someone could have a reductionist moral system and just think 'racial discrimination = bad'. I know which side of the fence I fall on.

rmbyrro 5y ago

Yet, this professor would have certainly given good advice to his student, providing this story was true. I don't know if this is hypothetical or not.

jcuenod 5y ago

When I first encountered this term, I had the same reaction and it seems like a reasonable response but (like one of the replies you've received) you're assuming your definition of racism. The definition that's usually used in sociology involves structural power and, perhaps most importantly, white supremacy. Particularly the latter point means that the term racism, in the academic context, always refers to power dynamics that flow out of white supremacy. There are still valid critiques (such as, arguably, unfalsifiablity) and, personally, I don't think the directionality built into the term help us as much as it hinders the conversation—especially given the divergence from the colloquial meaning of "racism". At the same time, though, systemic power is on the side of (certain) white people and the effects of discrimination are compounded by systemic power differentials. It seems important to bring that aspect of racism into the conversation.

sva_ 5y ago
> the term racism, in the academic context, always refers to power dynamics that flow out of white supremacy Pretty typical for Americans to make themselves the center of the definition of a basic term. Just because some academics redefine a term, doesn't make someone else's argument invalid.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
  I'm not sure academics redefined it so much as the colloquial usage changed. "Racist" was originally used as an alternative form of "racialist," without a negative connotation, to describe people who believed in the superiority of a particular race. These people were white (supremacist) Americans. Academics still use the word in a similar way. Not my field (and please correct me if I'm wrong), but I believe there are other terms like "racial discrimination" that didn't come from white supremacist thought, and that can be used in academia to describe mistreatment of white people on the basis of their skin.
zozbot234 5y ago
The word "racism" strictly refers to prejudice and/or discrimination in any context where systemic power differentials are involved. White supremacy might definitely be a relevant power differential, but there are others that can be just as relevant, such as the very real power held by admissions bureaucracies in academia. This does mean that, yes, so-called 'reverse' racism in such contexts, particularly when accompanied by systemic prejudice against e.g. whites and asians (such as an implied theory that they have less "character", "well-roundedness" or "diversity" than other groups) is in fact racism.