There is NO such thing as "reverse racism"

[SemiCharmedQuark]

I despise this term because it is so often used to justify getting rid of "affirmative action". Sorry, but there is no such thing as "reverse racism" when referring to the group that is currently in power and has every advantage.

[CAcyclist]

1. I concur!

:hand:

[badc0der]

2. Yep, it's still just "regular" racism

Maybe the word you're looking for is discrimination, which is different.

[m berst]

19. incorrect

Racism is a form of oppression based on skin color, not a matter of "not liking" people based on skin color.

To imagine that racism "works both ways" is to misinterpret the meaning of the word and to show ignorance of the history of racism.

Racism is European. The idea of "race" is European. It has always, and only, existed as an excuse for enslavement and mistreatment of some groups, for the entitlement and benefit of Europeans. No other understanding of the concept as it applies to American society and politics can be rationalized except in a highly theoretical and imaginary way.

[leftyandproud]

36. racism has nothing to do with oppression

If you view a class of people as inherently weaker or inferior to another group, you are a racist...period. It doesn't mather who is in charge...If you hold this attitude about others, you hold a racist view.

racism

n 1: the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races 2: discriminatory behavior towards members of another race

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

[m berst]

102. a little myopic there

"Members of one race being intrinsically superior to members of another" sounds nice and tidy if we ignore the centuries of brutality that have been justified by this prejudice.

Since we are policial acitivists, and we are liberals, we are interested in the actual social ills caused by the attitude represnted by the word, not its dictionary definition.

When we say racism as liberals, it is presumed to mean "the effects of racism in human terms" because that is the case with all liberal positions. When we say we support education, for example, it goes without saying that what we mean is that we support the benefits that education provides to real people and the difference that it makes in their lives.

A "tornado" is a "meteorological phenomenon featuring circling winds of high velocity" which sounds pretty innocuous - provided you aren't in its path. The you might choose some other words to describe it.

[CTLawGuy]

113. no I wouldnt

"A "tornado" is a "meteorological phenomenon featuring circling winds of high velocity" which sounds pretty innocuous - provided you aren't in its path. The you might choose some other words to describe it."

thats a tornado, no matter where I am

as opposed to a hurricane or a blizzard

[doni_georgia]

41. Technically you are incorrect

Racism

1)The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2)Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Racist policies are used to oppress people, but racism in and of itself is simply the belief that one race is superior to others. Any person can be a racist, regardless of their own race.

[buckettgirl]

66. so

you mean to say that there can never be any African-Americans that hate/discriminate against white people because they are white?

[Tomee450]

68. I am African American and

IMO, the blacks who hate whites do so, not because of the white skin, but because its been members of the white population that has made the lives of blacks so difficult for so long. I never hear black people speaking of white inferiority, but many whites believe African Americans are inferior and they act on that belief by discriminating against them. What is perceived as black racism is simply deep resentment at the way African Americans have been treated since coming to this country.

[dpt223]

71. You're right n/t

[buckettgirl]

73. I hear ya there!

I am taking Modern World Civilizations after 1500 this semester. I knew about history and stuff - slavery and the slave trade and such. But, boy, some of the stuff I was reading made me realize just how far it went and how bad it was. No race/culture deserved then or now to be treated that way. To me, when it is looked at from that view, that you stated, I certainly don't blame anyone for resenting white people. I only hope that both blacks and whites around the world learn from the past.

[tjwash]

114. "History and stuff"

aye....

[One_Life_To_Give]

120. Individually or Generally

What makes discrimination stand out from just hatred is how it is applied. Hating John just because, is just that. Hating all members of a arbitrary group is "(arbitrary_group)ism". Acting in a oppressive or discriminatory fashion toward the arbitrary group is discrimination.

example
A young boy sees his parents killed in a Indian raid. Boy grows up to be a Indian fighter. He is racist, in that he kills all Indians because they are Indians. Instead of chasing down Tom and Dick, the Indians who actually killed his parents, which would be vigilantism.

[jdj]

121. yes, this outlines the difference

the "cause and effect" issue, there is no "cause" of european oppression of ethnic groups, it was instead based on interpretations of the bible and religion, and eugenics type theorizing was an offshoot of this used to justify it.

where as many people fail to understand "reverse racism" as a reaction.

[Dorian Gray]

97. That's not true...

Racism exists in Asia... BIG TIME! While living in China, I saw it on a regular basis. As a white person, I was treated very respectfully to my face, but behind my back, I was referred to as "Gwai Lo." Not very nice. And the Indian, Filipino, and Black population were treated much worse than I was. That's racism. Disliking someone for their skin color. It is not solely a European invention, and it does not exist only in the West. It's rampant everywhere.

Oftentimes, accompanied by Classism.

[m berst]

103. that isn't racism as understood in our context

Racism is not about people "not liking" others, it is about centuries of human misery for people of color, caused by Europeans and based on the false concept of "race."

In 1965 there was NO controversy about this definition, except among the most extreme racists. Even they would agree with the definition, they just didn't think it was wrong. A while back Rush Limbaugh started cleverly re-defining the word, and now we have liberals confused and arguing for a new definition.

[K-W]

138. Your definition is as wrong now as it would have been in 1965

Racism is not the history of european race relations.

Racism exists all throughout human history and all throughout the world.

[Wallew]

125. In Japan we are called ...

I believe in Japan the same exists. White people are called 'GAI JIN' I think.

[K-W]

137. Racism is not european.

Racism is fairly universal.

[m berst]

152. depends

Up until about 20 years ago racism was seen as a European phenomenon by scholars and historians. They were wrong, as Rush discovered and pointed out, and we know better now.

[XemaSab]

146. Disagree

If you think Europeans invented racism, you've got another think coming....

Japan and India come first to mind...

Both of these civilizations had an acute awareness of their own "race" and/or skin color, and used this awareness to keep other people down.

And if you think the Europeans invented slavery, that's definitely not a supportable position. Africans enslaved each other long before the white man came along. The Bible was all about slavery, and the Hebrews, Egyptians, and Assyrians were certainly not WASP elitists.

Also, if you think racism is only from Europeans, how do you explain the anti-Semitic or anti-White beliefs of some radical African American groups?

I've been to schools where white people were in the minority, and were picked on (by both Blacks and Asians). I've been judged by the color of my skin, and not the content of my character. Is that not racism?

[m berst]

154. we don't live in Asia

And the discussion is not whether or not racism is some universal tendency or not.

We have a history in European culture. Eorpean culture has been strong and dominant for 500 years, and Eurpoean cultural notions have been imposed on much of the world. That history is unambiguous. The notion of race as a determinate of ranking of peoples, and the subsequent structuring of society, law, religion, foreign policy to match this erroneous and misguided idea is what racism is in our culture going back dozens of generations.

For a modern American to fail to grasp or recognize that and then talk about Japan or China is to think and speak as though the speaker lives in some sort of cultural and historical vacuum. Of course they don't, so that means that they are denying or are oblivious to the influence the culture they grew up in has had on their thinking.

[XemaSab]

174. Someone's an instigator here....

...and it ain't me.

I recognize the European and white legacy of racism. I recognize that we have historically been very cruel to people from every other continent, except Antarctica. We've been cruel to them abroad, and we've been cruel to them at home. We've committed genocide, enslaved people, and forced native people onto reservations, among other crimes.

However, this sad history is not unique to people of European descent. I know this because I live in neither a cultural nor a historical vacuum.

Sounds to me like someone's got a Eurocentric focus going on here.... tsk, tsk, not PC....

[m berst]

178. not instigating anything

Both points of view can be correct, yes? In the context of politics and culture in the United States, one point of view about racism is more relevant and meaningful than the other IMHO. Euro-centric racism is what has influenced American politics. Whether or not it is universal, or has gone on elsewhere, or is happening in some other way, is interesting and of value of course, but this thread is about the concept of "reverse racism" and when someone says that "all races do it" or it "it can happen everywhere" (not saying that you did, nor am I attacking you) that is to support the point of view that reverse racism is a legitimate concept. To argue that reverse racism is not a legitimate concept - which is what I am doing - requires that the discussion be restricted to US politics and culture, or the argument cannot be made.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

179. So expressing a valid point of view is being an instigator?

Please. Also, maybe you haven't had a chance to read through the rules yet, however DU prohibits calling people "instigators" because you happen to disagree with them.

[XemaSab]

181. Sorry

Didn't mean to stir the pot the wrong way.

Peace.....

[blurp]

160. What a bunch of bunk

Racism is European. The idea of "race" is European. It has always, and only, existed as an excuse for enslavement and mistreatment of some groups, for the entitlement and benefit of Europeans.


Well, the caste system in India dates to about 1500 BC. That's very close to what might be called racism.

And the Egyptians seem to have had an idea of race. There is evidence they murdered red-headed people where ever they found them, thinking they were evil. There are also certain reliefs seen in tombs that showed images representing various groups including one having white-skin, blue-eyes, and clad in ox-skin.

And what of the racism of the Greeks? Is that "European" racism, before there was a more collective European culture?

Racism has a long history and it began long before the devolopment of a European culture.

It seems to me you're trying to promote some kind of idea of European moral inferiority.

That almost sounds like racism. Naughty.

[Warpy]

3. White males on the whole are not a disadvantaged group

although individual white males may be discriminated against in trying to recruit women and minority males into education and employment. It's a hard distinction for a white male whose test scores were superior but who lost out when race or sex or even economic class were factored in to comprehend. He just feels discriminated against, and he was.

Calling it "reverse racism" is one hell of a stretch, though, and because white males as a group enjoy incredible advantages when compared to other groups in society, most of the civil rights cases brought by these guys get thrown out, and they should be.

Sometimes there is no real justice. Sometimes life is just plain unfair. Sometimes we have to suck it up. Gawd knows that minority folks and women have had much more than their share of discrimination to put up with.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

5. I respectfully disagree that white males are discriminated against

Minorities and women come from a distinct disadvantage just because of who they are. Tests have proved this. Not only that, tests are geared toward whites. So if despite all of these obstacles a minority has somehow managed to score as well or just slightly less well than a white person, they damn sure should get the spot.

[zmdem]

9. Sometimes life is just unfair ?

Therefore it is OK to discrminate against white males ? Sounds like a jim crow agrument with colours reversed. If it is a problem that minorities and women have been disriminated against in the past, then if it is good to discriminate against others now, all we are talking about is which group has the ability to legislate discrimination to their own benefit. Isn't that the very thing we are fighting against, the entrenched power to disadvantage one group over another via political power ?

[RaleighNCDUer]

151. It may well be that I've been discriminated against in the job

market, by a manager who was wanting more diversity in his staff, whether minorities or women, and you know what? I don't care. As a moderately well educated white male, I know I am always going to get another job interview, I will not be passed over simply because my name is Jamal or Humberto. If I've been passed over for a minority applicant, I won't be facing the far more prevalent likelihood of being passed over again, as they might had they not gotten the position.

Study after study has shown that when identical resumes, one with a 'white' male name and one with a 'minority' or female name, are reviewed, the white male applicant is 50% likelier to get a call.

In the unemployment threads we've all heard the 'out of work for a year, and not gotten a single call' stories. How many of those not called happen to be of the wrong sex or ethnicity?

Some might call it discrimination. I call it a leveling of my karma.

[chicagiana]

57. Well they are voting with this in mind ...

Guess what, we can VOTE to change the meaning of words. And white males are VOTING LIKE CRAZY this way!!!!

Look we need to CHANGE the langauge of civil rights. We need to stop identifying certain groups and provide EVERYBODY with protection against employment discrimination!!!

If a state is "at will" that minorities have rights that white males DO NOT! They have rights to sue for compensation if they are terminated for non-work related reasons. White males DO NOT.

We do NOT need laws against harrassing minorities. Burning crosses in the laws of "enner loving whites" should be just as illegal as burning one in a minority lawn. Dragging a black man down the highway is just as much a crime as if you did it to a white man.

Are you telling me that white men don't need protection against unfair dissmissal from work??? Are you telling me that white men don't need protection from being abducted and drug from a pickup truck traveling 70mph down a highway??? Are you telling me that burning down a WHITE church is less of a crime than burning down a BLACK church????

This is 100% about language that has alienated the majority group in America. It is not politically tenable!!! If you CHANGE the language, you get the same effect for minorities ... PLUS you get the benefit of protecting the majority as well. And that means mindshare and a larger political constituency!!!!

[SemiCharmedQuark]

69. No, crimes against minorities are often HATE crimes

That is why they are prosecuted more harshly, and they damn well deserve to be. Just like crime against gays deserves to be treated more harshly.

And I personally don't give a damn if whites are offended that finally minorities are starting to get somewhere close to being on an equal playing field. I don't care that they're uncomfortable with that. I don't care that they're uncomfortable with my support of gays.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

80. I never noticed any advantage

to being a woman with an engineering degree. Affirmative action didn't do anything for me. I doubt it even exists.

[MARALE]

112. Here Here

I always get the barely noticeable condensation and lowered expectations. Sometimes I get the opposite, when I am wrong, it goes double against me than a male co-worker that made the same mistake. It is hard to explain what it is like to work in a predominately white male workforce. It is better among younger engineers though. I think affirmative action is working to at degree that the next generations are more used to non-white males in theses fields.

[Wallew]

126. I can't find a job...

If you add age into the equation...

I'm over fifty, white male, two degrees, fifteen plus years in data processing, seven years as management.

Can't buy an interview, much less a job. Not saying discrimination, it's our society has a thing for the younger set.

It scares me to think that we don't honor our elderly. Nor do we make use of those who have lots to give.

Hey, I would go to work for almost free. The reason I say almost is because no one hires anyone for free. That's volunteer work. Which I already do at the local elementary and junior high school near my home.

[GraphicQueen]

4. ok

reverse discrimination is what you are trying to say.

hahahahaha but ok...you believe what you want and others will believe what they want.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

6. Yeah, minorities are so oppressive to the whites...

Just because they want to stand up for themselves. You want to continue to believe that the MAJORITY is is being taken advantage of by minorities...fine. Be the victim. Let me guess...you're white?

And no, I was not looking for the term "reverse descrimination" because that is not the term that is used. People who use this claim "reverse racism". Maybe for its alliteration...who knows.

[GraphicQueen]

117. So sorry to...

disappoint you but I am not considered white. I am half Apache and my husband is Apache and we live on a res. So, I most definitely know all about racism and discrimination. And I have never heard anyone use the term reverse racism but I have heard them say reverse discrimination. But, all of these racism threads are basically nothing but race-baiting anyway. The democrats seem to love to do it to their own, which is one of the reasons we have so many problems within our party.

[K-W]

140. So we are race baiting by pointing out that the republicans race bait?

Up is down and black is white eh?

Reverse descrimination is a propaganda for people who would rather continue to be part of the advantaged group than give the disadvantaged an equal playing field.

[m berst]

155. a world of upside down inside out thinking

It is happening more and more.

"How dare you call me a racist??" as though the charge of racism were the thing to worry about, not racist behavior.

Or, post here that you think people should be more courteous and considerate, and people will respond with "Who died and made you Miss Manners? And where do you get off calling people inconsiderate, you troublemaker!! Why don't you go somewhere else where you would be more comfortable and stop trying to tell people what to do! Moran!!"

lol

- "Reverse racism" never caused a lynching.

- "Reverse racism" didn't keep George Bush out of Yale.

- Asians never had millions of white slaves hunted down like animals, kidnapped from Europe, and dragged away in chains and kept in bondage because they were considered by all of the Chinese people to be sub-human.

[K-W]

139. Some of us prefer to rely on facts

policy based on reality > policy based on beliefs

[meow2u3]

7. 'Reverse racism' was made up by none other than Rush Limpballs

as an excuse to inflame the prejudices of white supremacists.

AFAIC, racism is racism, no matter what your race is.

[Eikon]

8. There is in NC, at least.

Back when I went to high school, there was definitely such a thing as reverse racism, and it was very prevalent. I saw black people treating whites as inferior, and using racist terms like cracker, more than I ever heard anyone use the "n" word. Here in the south, blacks have the history of slavery ingrained in them, it becomes a chip on some of their shoulders, thinking everyone owes them something. I can't help what anyone's ancestors did. The cafeteria was naturally segregated, but you had all the white girls dating the black football players, and the white guys left trying to imitate.

Maybe you were speaking in an governental sense, but on a personal level, reverse racism is very real.

[Danger Duck]

10. calm down

reverse racism is nonsense. It implies that racism itself can only be innate in one particular group, and that any discrimination that this group faces is "reverse". Wrong is wrong, racism is racism. And how does a cafeteria become "naturally" segregated? And is there something wrong with white girls dating black dudes? And what exactly were the white guys imitating, trying to date white girls?

Any-hoo, racism itself is an overused word, and one that does not carry it's own meaning. Everything you described was bigotry, which is more or less cruel treatment based upon your race or ethnicity. Racism is the belief and implementation that one race is superior, or that another is inferior. Pushing people to the back of the bus, unfair housing laws, ect, are examples of racism.

[Eikon]

13. reply

"And how does a cafeteria become "naturally" segregated?"

All the blacks sit with the blacks, and same for whites. They choose to do this on their own.

"And is there something wrong with white girls dating black dudes?"

No, I was not implying that. It was an example of how blacks were being viewed as superior. Their music, their culture, it's whats popular.

"And what exactly were the white guys imitating, trying to date white girls?"

They tryed to wear the same clothes, listen to the same music, and speak the same way. Whatever they had to do to get a girlfriend, I soppose.

[Danger Duck]

14. Are you for real?

This has got to be a moderator having fun. I'm walking away.

[Eikon]

15. What confuses you?

You must live in Mass.

[Danger Duck]

16. Actually,

I live in excess.

[Eikon]

18. har har

Massachusetts...

But seriously, what did I say that you don't understand?

[Danger Duck]

20. Nothing

I understood everything you said. I just thought that most of what you said was ridiculous. You sound like you're jealous of black folks for getting all of the girls, you feel betrayed that all of your white buddies had to act black in order to get girls, and that you were mistreated by black people and that was racist. It just seems odd that you're on a liberal board with all of these things going for you. But who am I to Judge? hey, if you wanna get some action, just exude some self confidence, and they'll be all over you. The notion that you have to "be" something in order to get laid is a little immature. Of course, we've all been there.

[UpsideDownFlag]

110. i dont think he's a freep. his homepage link looks pretty solid. nt

[Bill McBlueState]

76. What the hell is wrong with Massachusetts?

If every state was like Massachusetts, your guy would have won the presidency in a landslide. He is *your* guy, right?

[MissB]

17. I don' think the poster is Catholic, frankly. (nt)

[Kathy in Cambridge]

53. I guess you agree with Bush about 'Massachusetts'

[drdtroit]

74. And you must live in denial (not a river in Egypt).

I belive you thought you were posting on the Free Republic.

[m berst]

157. you know how "they" are

Don't get me wrong, I like them, and I don't have a racist bone in my body and would never use the "n" word or hate anyone because of their color, I don't care if they are green, purple or any other color, but I just think that they are blah blah blah... So don't start trying to imply that I am a racist! I think racism is wrong both ways and there is just as much racism the other way, and don't tell me I am wrong because I have seen it with my own eyes many times when "they" say things to me just because I am white and that is just as wrong...

So I think that "they" should stop accusing everybody of being racists all the time. I think that you had better think twice before you start saying hurtful things and making accusations that aren't true like saying that I am a racist.

</sarcasm>

[chicagiana]

58. Negative Stereotyping ...

Stereotyping is just as rampant among minorities as they are among majorities. And it pains me to say that the so called "liberal" communities are just as likely to stereotype red state voters and further alienate them.

BTW, why don't we do an audit some time and see how likely it is for black owned businesses to hire white people??? Wouldn't the refusal to hire a white person be racism as well???

The question MAY indeed be a red herring. But it DOESN'T MATTER. This is the perception, therefore it is political reality. And it effectively alienates the MAJORITY of the MAJORITY GROUP.

We need to rewrite our equal opportunity laws so that they are color-blind. Then we WILL protect everybody AND reclaim the majority mindshare!!!

[SemiCharmedQuark]

70. Again, blacks oppressing the poor poor whites?

Ugh. Well not to worry because luckily most businesses are owned by whites.

[itzamirakul]

127. Just a note...

Oprah Winfree, who is one of the biggest black-owned enterprises, has mostly ALL whites working for her organization, to my understanding. Is this reverse-reverse-racism? I mean is she against blacks who are against whites?

[DrWeird]

24. LOL.

They always show up in these threads.

[datasuspect]

45. i dunno

lots of black dudes really have a lot of charisma.

i bet you cannot STAND the idea of a black guy with a white girl.

[jeffrey_X]

82. The black man is really keep you down....right?

Get a clue.

[Dorian Gray]

98. Just last summer

at a Six Flags park, I was called a honky. Nobody had ever called me that before, and I was a little taken aback. It made me angry, actually, because I never spew out racial epithets myself. But, I kept quiet and realized that's how other people have felt for hundreds of years.

[Carni]

129. Honky? Good God--was it George Jefferson?

I haven't heard that term since the 70's
(The perpetrator must have been into retro)

[mark414]

106. cracker? racist?

do you know the origins of the word cracker?

it comes from whip cracker, or, the slave master.

cracker and nigger are two words on two wholly different levels. nigger has power behind it. cracker doesn't.

you seem like you have some issues on a personal level you need to deal with. otherwise, keep your racist rants to yourself.

[Hiptop]

166. A word only has the power that you allow it..

[UpsideDownFlag]

11. i agree. any race that hates another is racist. nt

[RafterMan]

12. Sure there is

Racism is bad because of its effects on the people comprising the group, not on the group itself. I'm sure it's poor compensation to the displaced working-class white guy that his former employer is also white.

I support AA as a lesser evil, but I can't magic away the problems with it by pretending the world is made of classes and not individuals.

[m berst]

21. thank you

I am truly shocked that this is even controversial on a liberal board. Most Republicans in the 60's, although often not supportive of the civil rights movement, would have laughed at the concept of reverse racism, let alone Democrats.

The concept of reverse racism was invented by bigots and spread by the likes of Limbaugh. Have many Democrats now embraced this false and destructive concept?

[RafterMan]

22. Just because

all the people in power are from one group does not mean that all the people in one group are in power.

That is the complaint.

[m berst]

26. wrong

All white people - everything else being equal in any situation - derive privilege and entitlement by virtue of being white.

On edit - this should be a no-brainer. 100 years ago every dirt poor hardscrabble farming cracker, no matter how bad his life was, would never hesitate to say "well, it could be worse. At least I'm not a n*gger."

You can say that times have changed, and they sure have. Whites are nowhere near as honest as they used to be about it.

[RafterMan]

27. Wrong

Everything else is never equal in any situation. It is that gross oversimplification that causes people to draw the broad, inaccurate conclusions that they do.

[m berst]

28. hmmmmm....

It is a conceptualization thing.... "all things being equal" for the purpose of illustration.

White man and an African American man in the same car, driving the same way, on the same street. The African American is more likely to be pulled over. Hence, "all things being equal"....

This holds true in many areas of society and in many activities. Race being the only variable in the situation, the situation changes. Mortgages, college admissions, bank loans, employment, advancement, likelihood of arrest, likelihood of being on death row, earning power....

That is what is meant by racism. Through an accident of birth, certain individuals are automatically and involuntarily handicapped - all things being equal.

You could argue "so what" or "too bad" if you like.

[RafterMan]

31. I'm not trying to argue that there is no such thing as racism

Of course there is.

But cui bono depends on the immediate circumstances, not on the fact that *in general* whites dominate blacks in this country.

The fate of the individual is not determined by generalities, but by particulars. By this cop, or by that employer -- not by the typical cop, or the typical employer. The power relationship varies with the individual circumstance. To say that it's generally one way is not a counterargument, because nobody leads their life "generally".

[m berst]

32. racism is not an individual thing

It is a barrier to individual and specific interaction because of a generalization. Racism is a form of generalizing, that is why it is a problem. To discover and understand general problems, we have to talk about general conditions.

[RafterMan]

34. I strongly disagree

Racism is a very individual thing. The generalizations are made against individuals -- that is why it is so hurtful.

Take your own view of a typical racist's view of blacks. Since there are all types of people in every population, surely there is some black person that more or less matches this idea. The problem is that the racist matches this idea against every black person he meets, not just the one to whom it applies. As you note, the racist applies the generalization instead of seeing the individual.

But what if your boss is black and you are white? What if he or she carries around a stereotypical view of whites and tars you with that? Your getting shafted in this circumstance is not some kind of aggregate offset against the many blacks who get the shaft when the power relationship is reversed -- the injustice happens to that person, not to a population. It's simply unfair.

I've worked as a temp and seen many situations where blacks had the power of hiring and promotion. Sometimes, they favored blacks, sometimes they were colorblind, sometimes they favored whites. And I regard the first and last of these as unjust regardless of who holds the power in broader society. What mattered to the individuals working in these individual circumstances was who held the power over them.

[m berst]

39. I understand

I am sure that all of that has happened and I am not disagreeing with your experience of it.

"Rafterman's bad experiences" I would call it. I just don't think that it is racism you are talking about, nor that we can learn anything about racism from your experiences.

Unfair stuff happens. You assume that if you are treated unfairly by a person who happens to be an African American that it somehow has something to do with racism or race relations. Statistics don't support you, so we have nothing but your view. Since you are convinced that some African Americans have it out for you, this could be skewing your experience. When I was managing a staff I would not have wanted to have a white person on staff who was on the look out for reverse racism because that would not be a very good attitude for working closely with people from a variety of backgrounds.

I would not be too thrilled with any staffer who ran to me and said "so and so did such and such because I am ___" nor did any Hispanic or African American staffer EVER run to me with a whiney complaint about any white person. I DID however have whites on a couple of ocassions run to me with this kind of nonsense. They picked it up from Rush - how to be a persecuted white person and blame your problems on someone else. If there were a consistent pattern of behavior that was impairing the effectiveness of the staff, I would want to root it out whatever it was. I certainly would not take on solving social issues in the work environment.

People are people. If you are having problems in your individual life on a personal level with people, it is not because of race unless you are introducing it. Most people don't care, and don't personalize it, nor should they. If I had an employee who was personalizing anything the way that you are doing here with race, that would be a red flag for me that the person could potentially be trouble, no matter who they were.

Once in a while I had a new hire, usually a young African American or Hispanic man, with a chip on his shoulder - "whites are out to get me." My response was, "you bet they are, but here you are judged as a man and by the quality of your work. Ready to go to work?" Done. But the couple of white guys I had problems with moped around for weeks imagining that their problems at work were because their African American, or their Hispanic, or their gay, or their female co-workers "had it in for them" because they were white males. Uh huh.

So that is the management view on "reverse racism" with no bleeding heart liberal crap involved. We ran a tough-nosed bottom line no-nonsense business in a very comptetitve field and I was required to make decisions based on what worked in the real world, not a political ideology, and I had ZERO time for "oppressed white males" with their complaints of "discrimination."

[RafterMan]

47. Way to be a smart ass

These are not my experiences, but my observations on the conditions I found. I was always a temp, always wanted to stay a temp, and did not want anything from the people I was observing. Your attempt to paint my views as colored by self-interest is, I must say, rather snotty.

About your more broad point, your conclusion that since you are the perfect manager, therefore everyone else is, is specious.

[m berst]

62. I think you are projecting here

I have offered you my views, and I have been respectful and tolerant and patient. You are free to see your personal experience as having significance. I suggested that you were going about it backwards.

The idea of a give-and-take talking points "discussion" is something that the right wingers have created. In the old days liberals listened to each other, learned from each other, and deliberately and thoughtfully worked through issues. They didn't snipe back and forth and try to "win" arguments. I am sorry that I come across as superior - "snotty" you said - but it is possible that I know more than you do. Possible. I didn't claim that I do. But I can tell you that you aren't listening and are not being very considerate. I do believe that I am arguing circles around you. You can learn from me or you can snipe at me.

My point of telling you my story was to enlighten you and to broaden your view of the subject, not to show you up or beat on you. We can work together, or we can turn the conversation into the verbal equivalent of a wrestling match. In the latter case, I would suggest that we just grunt and make no pretense at being enlightened people, liberals, or Democrats. We are still committed to being enlightened, liberal Democrats, are we not?

[RafterMan]

64. You are arguing in circles

but not around me.

You're anecdotes are not instructive because I see no reason to generalize from them. Of course there are many people who falsely cry racism or misattribute their misfortune to it -- does that mean it doesn't exist?

Also, I don't find smarmy HR doublespeak particularly "enlightened". Go pat somebody else's head.

[m berst]

65. so you see nothing of value?

Are you saying that you are seeing nothing of value in what I am saying and are certain that you are right?

You say that you are unable to generalize from my observations. I offered the specific personal expetrience because you rejected by previous arguments as being too general.

I suspect that we are not arguing as two liberals here trying to gain understanding as to how to best advance liberalism, rather we are debating liberalism itself. I could be wrong. Explain to me your sense of what liberal values and ideals are, and how this issue and the position you are taking on it fits into your overall liberalism.

[RafterMan]

67. Grrr

One specific experience is not *each* specific experience. Is that not obvious?

And what does this discussion have to do with the nature of liberalism? Why is it so hard to just admit that people of any race could have power in a given situation and people of any race can be bigots? Why is that so alarming to you? What is illiberal about it? People are just people, so why do you waste so much energy denying that?

These implausible denials do nothing to further racial justice or affirmative action, they merely harden the suspicions and anxieties of marginal whites, who the Democratic party is driving away in droves. And in doing so, they move the supposed goal that much farther away.

[m berst]

84. not trying to drive you crazy

Give me an opening so we can get on the same page here.

I agree about the problem of the alienation of poor whites from the party. I agree with you that racial tensions are high.

I can't agree that white men are systematically or instituionally oppressed or discriminated against as a group. Ergo, no racism.

How does affirmative action represent oppression to you? I am serious, not trying to be a smart ass, as you said.

There are always going to be people who take advantage of situations, or who slide or coast and try to get a free ride at the expense of others. There are always going to people who use excuses or blame others for their problems.

But I think we are all being screwed by what the Republicans are doing to the economy, and that makes any other oppression we experience seem miniscule by comparison. Doesn't it just play into the hands of the fat cats and the crooks on the top if we blame African Amercians or Hispanics directly or indirectly, or give "cover" for those who do, for our own situation or experiences?

[RafterMan]

87. Good lord

I don't know what battle you're fighting...why do you see me as arguing against affirmative action? I said I supported it in an earlier post.. you seem to be arguing with some archetypal phantom rather than the words I put down.

Also -- Why does racism have to be systemic in order to be hurtful? Oh, you may say, so the white guy runs in to a tough situation -- he can just go get another job in privileged white America. Can you not see why someone leading the hardscrabble life of the lower class might not warm to that attitude?

Republicans ruining the economy? Well, there we agree on something. Your next statement is where you get tripped up -- "Doesn't it just play into..." It doesn't matter who's hands it plays into. This "noble lie" designed to preserve the peace doesn't work because people see though it. Acknowledging a simple fact of life isn't "blaming" blacks or hispanics or anybody. Denying it just makes you look false.

Fundamentally, as you point out, it is not a huge or widespread problem. So just admitting the possibility is not going to unravel whatever progress has been made. But it would also show you understand some of their fears as the forces that operate on their lives change around them.

[m berst]

91. ok

Yeah we are talking past each other a little here, aren't we? I re-read the thread and understand your point. I am looking at the general and you are trying to make a point about the specific. I don't think that the two views are contradictory. We aren't really far apart on anything significant here.

Just out of curiousity, what is "HR doublespeak?" Human resources?

[RafterMan]

94. Yep

Human resources.

I'm glad it's mostly resolved. I was afraid I would have to stay up until 4:00 am again to get in the last word.

[m berst]

96. rofl

This doesn't count as the last word, btw. That honor is still yours.

Peace, friend.

[hfojvt]

37. it is the lack of equality

that might lead me to say "so what"?
Back when I owned a car, in the last two years, it was a worse car than about 70% of the other cars on the road. Plus, I suck at maintenance, so I got pulled over alot (like I am supposed to know that my license plate light is out).
Now, if you equalize things, it may be true that a 42 year old black person driving a car as bad as mine would get pulled over more. My point is that if all other things are equal except income and race that income is a larger factor today than race is. Maybe there has already been a study that proves me wrong. Feel free to cite it.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

43. No way.

That's just it. Even if you had a black man with a car that was twice as good he would STILL be pulled over more than a poor white man. And you know why? Because there is no reason "one of them" could really own a car that well by himself.

[H2O Man]

44. That's an ignorant statement

"100 years ago every dirt poor hardscrabble farming cracker, no matter how bad his life was, would never hesitate to say 'well, it could be worse. At least I'm not a n*gger.'"

That's about as stupid of a statement as one is likely to read anywhere in America. You are simply projecting your own diseased thinking upon others.

[itzamirakul]

128. No, H2OMan...That is the truth...ignorant or not..

I am well over fifty and I have lived through segregation, Jim Crow Laws and all the rest and I am here to tell you that the rich, white powers that be of the time (1940s, 1950s) drove wedges between the poor whites and poor blacks who had so much in common in those days that it appeared for awhile that they might begin to see eye-to-eye. Those in power did this wedge driving by using the race card, i.e. "but at least you are not a nigger." And so their white skin became their value, their "property" if you will. If they had absolutely nothing else, they had their white skin. So help me, that is sick but it is true.

[H2O Man]

136. While what you said is true

it does not have anything to do with what the other fellow said. Let me clarify: Of course those who capitalize on ignorance, hatred, and racism tried -- and continue to try -- to divide people, and cause those who should unite to smash (figuratively, of course!) their common enemy, to fight each other. No one is debating this.

The poster claimed something entirely different. S/he claimed that all poor white agrarians subscribed to that ignorance and hatred and racism. This is distinct from saying the rich folks promoted that ignorance, hatred, and racism. While it is easy to prove that it was promoted by the wealthy, and it is easy to give examples of hundreds and even thousands of examples where the plan worked, two things would be required to believe that all poor white agranians were this way.

The first thing necessary would be an unwillingness to look at the well-documented history of the many poor white agrarians who did not say, "Well, hor dang! Least I ain't a n**ger!' -- or an inability to understand American history fully. It's far more complicated than one group being good, and another bad. In order to believe all poor white agrarians were racist, one must believe that {1} poor people are inherently stupid, and always believe everything that them smart rich folks say; {2} that white people are inherently racist, an attribute that results from the pigment of their skin; and {3} that agrarians are ignorant farmers who lack the capacity to think for themselves.

The statement that ALL poor white agrarians subscribed to ignorant, hateful, and racist beliefs simply does not hold up. One can never justify the stance that any group of human beings is inherently ignorant, hateful, and racist.

[itzamirakul]

144. I understand what you are saying...

my post was meant to point out what you obviously grasped, that people were, in many cases, divided by the powerful. But then, a lot of this racism by skin color was passed down to later generations and like the Hatfields and the McCoys, it took root without people even understanding WHY they hated blacks so much. It was just that "my daddy" or "my mommy" told me too. Again, I must repeat, that white skin alone was given a value. It became equal in the minds of poor whites to the value of the land which they did not own.

When we visited my former spouse's grandfather on his farm in Georgia in 1956, we were visiting a real white southerner, who said of us, with great pride, "Aye God! I'm proud of my niggers!" And, my spouse, at least, was a part of his family. It never, ever occurred to this man that he was being insulting to us. He was the opposite of Strom Thurmond because he fathered 10 children with the same black woman, and lived openly with her. Yet he retained his sense of white superiority and the value of his white skin. And he was not poor. He owned half of the town of Noonan, Georgia.

[H2O Man]

145. The Southern Povert Law Center is building

a "Wall of Tolerance" Civil Rights Memorial Center in Montgomery, Alabama. One of the things I am proud of is that I am one of the many people being honored there, for some work I have done in combating intolerance, ignorance, hatred, and violence in New York State. My family has had first-hand experience in dealing with poor, white agrarians who have indeed invested in racism, and who have felt safe to attack brown-skinned people late at night, from the shadows, from behind, when they have a 16-to-1 advantage. But their hate will not cause me to hate; their ignorance will not make me despise knowledge; their racism will not result in me subscribing to any "-ism"; and their violence will not cause me to do anything foolish.

"Anything foolish" includes concluding that ALL poor white farmers are the same. They are not. American history includes numerous wonderful examples of people from every "race," ethnic, minority, and majority group, both sexes, every economic class, and all ages, rising up to take a stand for justice. More, even people who were at one time ignorant fools -- like Senator Byrd -- can change. We must not only allow for change, we must encourage it. And holding any racist, sexist, or related ignorant and hateful bias only slows down the pace that our society can change.

[itzamirakul]

148. Very well stated...

[m berst]

184. I work with poor white farmers

"Anything foolish" includes concluding that ALL poor white farmers are the same...

My reference to poor white farmers was in a historical context, was regionally specific, and in no way meant to be derogatory about a group of people, as I carefully explained to you, and was specific to the subject of racial inequality.

Here is a list of the several hundred small farmers with whom I work closely-

http://www.applejournal.com/trail.htm

I have written extensively in advocacy of the small farmer, and in opposition to the stereotypes.

Here is a sample -

Modern urban Americans have an increasingly vague sense of where the food they eat comes from and how is it produced. Being 3 or 4 generations removed from the family farm, and subject to intense marketing of processed food and lured by the convenience of packaged or prepared on demand food, this diminishing awareness is accompanied by a declining quality in dietary habits. Media images of farmers as backwards, primitive and provincial - the rural "hayseed" or "country hick" stereotype - haven't helped in the struggle to educate the public about the life and death issues of food production, and the scientific and enlightened approach needed to succeed as a modern farmer.

The essential and time-honored art of agriculture, the very bedrock of our way of life, is one of the oldest and most dynamic civilized pursuits. When we say "scientific farming" we mean agriculture that is based on measurable, objective results, tested and reviewed by a wide variety of qualified and dedicated individuals and institutions. As scientific farmers, we are in close contact with the researchers at Michigan State University, we work with the pest management experts and read, study and attend conventions and classes constantly.

[m berst]

169. intentional distortion of what I said

"... the many poor white agrarians who did not say, "Well, hor dang! Least I ain't a n**ger!' ..."

That is an intentional distortion of what I said, IMHO. I have no idea whom you are defending, whom you think was attacked or ridiculed, or what you found so offensive or incorrect about what I said. That makes it pretty difficult to respond.

"The statement that ALL poor white agrarians subscribed to ignorant, hateful, and racist beliefs simply does not hold up. One can never justify the stance that any group of human beings is inherently ignorant, hateful, and racist."

You are arguing against your interpretation of what I meant, rather than what I said here. I did not say that anybody "subscribed" to anything, nor did I mean to say that. I was talking about a generally shared observation and for some reason you feel compelled here to twist that into something very ugly and then use that to justify attacking me.

[H2O Man]

172. Your exact words

which can be found in your post #26 are:

"100 years ago every dirt poor hardscrabble farming cracker, no matter how bad his life was, would never hesitate to say, 'well, it could be worse. At least I'm not a ni*ger.'"

You did NOT make a comment about a "generally shared observation." Get real. Your words include "every," then your stupid description of white agrarians as "dirt poor harscrabble farming cracker(s)" followed by "would never hesitate." You might want to rethink making categoric statements about what "every" white farmer "would never hesitate" to say or do. You simply can't defend it, and proof of that is your lame effort to back-track and change it into some "generally shared observation."

And, in case you want to look at the full extent of your stupidity, you followed that with: "You can say that times have changed, and they sure have. Whites are nowhere near as honest as they used to be about it." Shame on you. Don't try to take attention off the ugly, ignorant things you wrote. Take responsibility.

[m berst]

176. are you a white farmer?

I am trying to grasp what set you off here.

[H2O Man]

182. No.

I do not have to belong to any group to be offended by racist insults being directed at it. The sad thing is that you may sincerely not recognize how offensive what you said is. It betrays the goals of those who participated in the civil rights movement, and is as offensive as anything from any other racist.

Does it occure to you that no race, no economic class, and no career produces exclusively ignorant and racist people?

[m berst]

183. sorry, still confused

I am a person who participated in the civil rights movement, and since you attacked me I have asked 4 or 5 people I know who are also veterans of the civil rights movement to look at this thread and see if they could figure out what had offended you, and we aren't able to see where I was offensive. I am also a person who has spoken out to hundreds of thousands of people on racism, in African American churches, in white Evangelical churches in the South, and in front of every kind of audience in all areas of the country for decades without ever being told that I was ignorant or offensive.

I am not saying that I wasn't offensive, I am sincerely saying that I don't see where or how I was, and have been asking you to point out my error to me.

I have read your posts for a year here at DU, and I have a lot of respect and admiration for you. I would be very willing to listen to your opinion, and to change my view where they are shown to be wrong.



on edit fixed html

[m berst]

158. diseased thinker here

Hi. I think you read more into it than I said. Many said it with sadness and compassion, but no one doubted that African Americans were on the bottom rung.

So "all poor white agrarians subscribed to that ignorance and hatred and racism" was not what I said or meant.

What I did say, which is quite different, is "All white people - everything else being equal in any situation - derive privilege and entitlement by virtue of being white."

[H2O Man]

171. What you said is a matter of record

and anyone can look at your post #26 to see the following:

"100 years ago every dirt poor hardscrabble farming cracker, no matter how bad his life was, would never hesitate to say, 'well it could be worse. At least I'm not a ni*ger.'

You could say that times have changed, and they sure have. Whites are nowhere near as honest as they used to be about it."

That was you. Note the specific words in sentence #1: "every," "cracker," and "would never hesitate." That was the sentence I objected to in post #44, when I commented: "That's about as stupid of a statement one is likely to read anywhere in America. You are simply projecting your own diseased thinking upon others."

The second sentence fits the same bill.

I have no idea who you are. I hope you are young, and that maybe you were simply drunk, or having a bad day. But whether or not you realize it, and whether or not you care, with those two sentences, you blew every other valid point you had made earlier on the thread, and were spreading the seeds of ignorance and hatred. Stop it, please! It's far beyond your understanding, at least at this point, but you are in absolutely no position to make such categoric statements on ANY group of people. What may be true of many -- even most -- of those "dirt poor hardscrabble farming crackers" were ignorant and hateful, you might want to stand with those who were not, instead of running your foolish mouth in a manner that identifies you with the most ignorant of racists. The people who have struggled for civil rights in this country didn't have a goal of making stupidity an option for today's generation, black, brown, red, yellow or white.

[m berst]

177. more insults and attacks

I understand that I blew credibility with you, but in all sincerity, I cannot understand how. Surely I cannot have fallen so low in your estimation that I am not due at least an explanation.

If I am in error here in some way, or have offended you, I am more than willing to apologize and to make corrections where I can see that I have wronged you.

To simply continue to heap abuse on me suggests that you believe that I am knowingly and intentionally being offensive or obtuse, but I can assure you that I am not.

The word "cracker" perhaps upset you? You seem to think that there is some hatred or ignorance behind something I said. If there is, I am missing it. Ignorant of what? Hatred toward whom?

[DrGonzoLives]

60. And what about economic conditions?

I'll be the first to admit that blacks and other minorities do face additional obstacles. But I'm wondering exactly how it is I am deriving an advantage from being white when I have no health care, two college degrees but no job, and so forth?

It is not ALL whites, it is the wealthy elite whites and those others with that quiet racism that gets them to spread into farther and farther out suburbs to get away from the "other."

Wealth has plenty to do with it too. Those who are wealthy will always have an inherent advantage.

[Carni]

133. I agree with you at this point wealth is a huge component

Now don't get me wrong...there IS racism and some of it is the long festering type held by long time racists, but I think nowadays the key is the wealth thing (maybe it always has been? I don't know)

The Bush reich would just LOVE to stoke the flames of racism which is why they constantly send their idiotic messengers like Limbaugh out to fuel the flames!

IMO people will draw together and try to help each other out if they are all in the same boat and are of like status (live in the same neighborhood/same income level/know each other/shared community etc etc)

The elite don't want the lower and middle class whites and blacks to live together...why?

Because all of a sudden you'd have a united populist movement by the middle and lower classes that would kick all these crooks off of their thrones! The biggest ace in the Repukes sleeve is in scaring the hell out of people so they don't find common ground and work together (that doesn't just go for African Americans and whites that would go for all ethnic groups living together IMO)

Bush appoints African Americans to present one of his faces and then at the same time he has his surrogates like Limbaugh out there spewing crap to promote racist attitudes.

I find in my area where I live for instance (which is middle class and very racially diverse...it's like 60% African American, 40% percent other groups, with the whites being about 30% of that)

Over the last ten years everyone has drawn together in an effort to make the community a place where we want to live and the last two elections have been especially energizing in bringing people together.
(Not many fans of Republicans here in my area)

It's all a fear thing...IMO (Create fear and divide)

But back to your point, it's all about wealth and keeping the bulk of the population (the have nots) quiet and under control!

Bush and company are all about the bait and switch.

[CTLawGuy]

118. im sure there were some people

"On edit - this should be a no-brainer. 100 years ago every dirt poor hardscrabble farming cracker, no matter how bad his life was, would never hesitate to say "well, it could be worse. At least I'm not a n*gger.""


who didn't say that 100 years ago. So that's hardly proof of your points.

[H2O Man]

123. In fact, such an ignorant statement

takes away from any credibility the person who wrote it may have otherwise had. The good thing about such stupid statements is that they are on such a weak foundation that those who make them can never support them in an open discussion. Hence, when confronted with a challenge to debate the meritsof the statement, the poster refuses to respond.

[m berst]

159. I am here

The board is moving so fast that it is difficult to keep up with threads. I certainly had no idea that my comment would cause such a furor, and had I been able to predict that I would not have left it without follwing up on it or answering for it.

So, let's see - in my absence I have been called ignorant. lost credibility, accused of making stupid statments that have weak foundations, and of refusing to respond.

So here I am in open discussion to support the statement I made.

[H2O Man]

162. Actually you can't.

You can't support such an ignorant statement.

Time sure was flying fast, though, and taking two days to get back to it makes sense. But, in the mean time, itzamirakul and I carried on the conversation on posts # 44, 128, 136, 144, 145, and 148. And I think it pretty well covered the weaknesses of your statement.

[m berst]

170. nothing to "support"

Really, I have no idea why you are on the attack about this.

I said that for generations, the lot of the poorest of the poor white in the South was - as was almost universally recognized - still better than that of the average African American. Where is the controversy about that?

[H2O Man]

173. Don't try that weak shit

Your words, in post #26, are:

"100 years ago every dirt poor hardscrabble farming cracker, no matter how bad his life was, would never hesitate to say, 'well, it could be worse. At least I'm not a ni*ger.'

"You can say that times have changed, and they sure have. Whites are nowhere near as honest as they used to be about it."

Shame on you for saying that, and shame on you for pretending that you said something different.

[m berst]

175. begging your pardon

Now you imply that I am backing down, and attack my attempt at clarifying my meaning by calling it "weak shit."

You are taking a couple of statements I made out of context, and avering that they are self-evidently in error. Point out the error, or stop with the attacks and insinuations, please.

[m berst]

180. for clarification

In the previous post (#26), in an attempt to point out that throughout history in this country, whites have enjoyed entitlement and privilege, all other things being equal, by virtue of being white, I made a statement to illustrate that point.

The phrase I quoted is one that I often personally heard 40 years ago or so, and the derogatory words used in my post were words that were commonly used, as ugly as they may be. That even the poorest of the poor whites in segregated society perceived themselves to be better of than African Americans is something that I have also read in historical works, and in the letters and correspondence of people going back to the Civil War.

So I stand by both the quoted phrase as indicative and illustrative of my point, and while I regret the use of terms that seemed to have offended people here, nevertheless I stand by their historical accuracy. As to the generalizations in the statement - "every" and "never hesitate" - it is of course true that in the real world it is never the case that every person thinks or speaks a certain way. However, in the context, which was not an attempt to justify or apologize for any racial or ethnic stereotype, and which was motivated by a desire to demonstrate the generalized nature of racism in American society, I think that these generalizations were appropriate and not in any way misleading or critical or hateful toward anyone here, nor to any group of people.

I grew up in a different time, and was involved in politics and the civil rights movement, and then it was much easier to discuss race than it seems to be today. I would make the assertion that the creation and dissemination of the concept of reverse racism is part of the confusion that people now have about issues of race, race relations and institutional racism. That is my opinion.

Since race is so rarely discussed anymore, when compared to my experiences of 35-40 years ago, I was unaware as to how difficult it has become to discuss now. Had I known that, I would have refrained from using parody, and I would have given a more detailed explanation of my intentions and my meaning in that post.

I have written here in precisely the same way and with the same point of view as I did in 1960, through the civil rights and integration movements, and have spoken from stage in performance in thousands of venues, including in hundreds of African American churches, as well as Evangelical churches all over the small towns in the South, used the same examples, and argued for the same ideals. I have spoken with thousands of people all over the country for 40 years about racial reconciliation. I say this only because I have been accused here of being an instigator, and of being hateful and ignorant, and to counter the implications in the attacks on me that I am saying something more or other than what I posted.

[chicagiana]

61. I'm sure that white kids attending black high schools ...

I'm sure that white kids attending predominantly black schools would tend to disagree with you!!!

Tolerance is NOT a color issue. It is an issue that we all hold in our hearts. It is derived from stereotyping and lazy intellectual processes.

Minorities are JUST as likely to exhibit the same stereotyping behavior as are whites. It is a HUGE trap that repressed cannot become the repressers in their own enclaves.

Bigotry is a seed in the heart of EVERYONE. And we ALL have to spend time whacking it to keep it under control. As I look around here, I see ALL KINDS of stereotyping of red state voters. Some is fair, some is unfair.

I listen to Janine Garafolo (who I love on the whole) pigeon holing southerners as all being slack-jawed swamp running, racist, ignoramuses. It's NOT TRUE. And us red state occupants keep trying to STOP our peers from making these assumptions and stereotyping good folks who are largely decieved.

If someone doesn't get your message, you should blame the messanger before the listener. And our message is non-cohesive, ambiguous and poorly constructed. True, rural listeners do have a pre-disposition, but if we changed the NATURE of our message, we could win over a fair amount of them!!!!

[shockra]

23. Correct

Reverse racism implies that all races are on a linear (level) playing field and you can just back the car up and smack whites back with equal force.

But of course it's not. Racism is hierarchal structure with whites at the top. Whiteness itself is concept that was invented by "whites" to declare themselves superior to all others. It's been pointed out that the word oppression has the word "press" in it. The dominant group can press down on the others at whim. Doesn't work the other way around.

Individuals can be hated for their whiteness, but that doesn't amount to racism against whites. Because that hate, or any actions resulting from that hate, never reduce the power of whites. Even if you hate whites as a group, nothing you do, within the white system, is going to reduce white power. Racism is a systemic problem, and the system was created by, and for, whites, to confer advantages on whites in ways so numerous we can hardly begin to exhaust the list of them because they're taken for granted as the "status quo."

[RafterMan]

25. But the hate reduces the individuals who are hated

if not the race itself. That is precisely the problem.

[hfojvt]

29. where is this white power?

The system was created by powerful people to confer advantages upon the powerful. Most of those powerful people happened to be white. Certainly there are plenty of powerful people today who are not white males.
Except at the very top, most white males have been working their asses off as wage-slaves trying to avoid either absolute poverty or being worked to death.
Logically just because some white males have the power does not mean that all white males do.
I had two black co-workers tell me that I needed to experience life as a black man, and my reply was that they should experience it as a poor white person. In fact I have read "Black Like Me" and seen the movie "Soul Man". As far as "advantages" conferred upon whites - you might say that whites get justice and others don't, maybe in lots of cases they get mercy, or the benefit of the doubt. I think that justice and mercy and a good job and educational opportunities should be available for all.

[m berst]

33. you are inverting the issue

Your personal experiences with other individuals don't contradict the concept of racism.

We can't look to your individualized experience and extrapolate a general finding that contradicts the findings of general studies. The question is, how is the general influencing the personal and specific, not the other way around.

The very fact that people talk about race as an issue in their personal life as you just did proves the existence of racism, it doesn't contradict it.

You in essence are saying that "there isn't racism" because "look at what Black people did to me." The very fact that you describe the actions of individuals as something that Black people did is racist. There isn't anything more to racism, in so far as your personal life goes. You just described it to a "t" in your attempt to disprove it.

[hfojvt]

35. If the general has no battlefield experience

then they may reach conclusions that are unwarranted, such as:
"the system was created by, and for, whites, to confer advantages on whites in ways so numerous we can hardly begin to exhaust the list of them because they're taken for granted as the "status quo." "
To conclude that all whites have priveleges and power just because all those with priveleges and power are white is poor logic.

Also, I never said either "there is no racism" nor "look what black people did to me". All I have claimed is that powerless white males get just as hammered by the system as any other group in spite of their supposed "white power". My main experience with black people is that a black co-worker will insist on giving me a ride home when he sees me walking.

I am not expecting my personal experience to create a general truth, only that it contradicts a false general study, but there are exceptions to every rule and as a resident of places that were 99.44% white, I do not have as much experience as the fellow from NC. I tried to point out that I have tried to broaden my perspective, and I am a big fan of Bob Herbert even if he hardly ever writes to me.

[H2O Man]

46. The playing field in America

is no where near level. It simply isn't. There is no question about that. The country still has numerous structural advantages that favor white people over non-white people. And what was once obvious racism has become far more sophisticated, and is disguised as systematic rules and regulations that are "color-blind."

To list examples of racism that occure in your life is, in fact, exactly what it is all about .... because that is why it is ugly, evil, and wrong: it hurts human beings in their homes and communities.

Yet "racism" isn't restricted to white folks, any more than "family violence" is restricted to men. Those that advocate for such foolishly restricted definitions merely want a systematic okay for their own ignorance, hatred, and violence.

[Carni]

135. But again it goes back to the wealth thing

Slavery existed because wealthy people were making money off of free labor (Granted the people doing it were white) but basically the same thing is taking place today IMO except it isn't called slavery.

They suck poor people into this country (or from within this country) and then they expect them to work themselves to death because they have no choice it's that, the streets, or jail.

[baba]

30. Racism = Prejudice + Power

The "equation" for racism.

[Behind the Aegis]

38. You are correct!

If you "reverse" racism, then linguistically it could imply "no" racism. That is a simple explanation! Now, for the complicated one...

Racism is defined as discrimination based on race, but it also includes the use of power. Therefore, in this country, whites can be racist toward blacks, but not the other way around. BUT! Blacks can be racists! How?! They can be racist toward other blacks and Hispanics. In this country, white have the most power, then blacks, then...well, you get the picture. ANYONE can be discriminatory or bigoted to any group.

Discrimination or bigotry of any kind is painful and counter-productive!