Home More advice Politics & Law
According to "View" co-host Joy Behar, "Only white people can be racist" - Is this true or false ?
miscegenymiser, you are trying to play semanitcs here, but I will bite...
"Jimahl, the subjugation of a people would require the reins of power being held by some other peoples."
And? Are you saying the majority in this country doesn't hold the reins of power?
"You have narrowed the definition of racism to include only addendum 2 of your provided definition. '2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.'"
Uhh... no. I clearly showed in my post that all three dictionary definitions of racism show that what is commonly refered to as reverse racism is not.
"This is an Apartheid state as we have come to coin the policies. ' Appatheid is just a form of government based on racism, and not the definition of racism itself.' Your words. I can believe till the end of the day that I am superior to you in every manner imaginable because of my race, but without the avenues to institute my exalted status I am no racist?"
Wrong, even the thought that your race is superior to another is racist. Not all racism is institutionalized.
"Let's refer back to your given definition, '1. a BELIEF OR DOCTRINE that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.' That's a mighty big 'OR' there,"
Why is that a mighty big 'or'? There is not a big distinction between doctrine and belief. A doctrine is just a more formally defined set of beliefs.
"look again. '3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.' Hatred and intolerance are independant of caste, You do make a point when you suggest that if they result from castigation they may better indicate insufferable resentment. This is why I offer the gang correlations."
You are confusing caste with race. They are not the same thing. No one suggested that hatred and intolerance are exclusive to racism. There are many examples that have nothing to do with racism. That was not the disussion.
"'Your socialogical comparisons to criminal gangs and prisons do not represent any corellation to society is as a whole. I find that rather ludicrous.' Pray tell why? Some elaboration required."
Because is is a very narrow focus on the group dynamics of criminals. It no way is representative of all of society. You are trying to imply correlation where none exists.
"'I guess there are other types of segragation that have nothing to do with supremecy of one group over another, but just a desire to be apart. But that is not what we are talking about. That is not racism. Racism is about control and supiorority.' I'll go out on a limb and speak for a few of us here and say that this is precisely what we are talking about. I'll also go so far as to say that we are all to some extent proud of our culture, look at all the cultural festivals around the country. That desire is not to be apart, but to retain what our forebears fought to maintain, and I argue that it is ingrained especially in the male of the species as a whole to preserve, as I've said, rightly or wrongly."
Celebrating and preserving ones culture has nothing to do with racism, or even segragation. Wanting to celebrate your culture does not mean you harbor any hatred toward other races. Nor does it mean you think you are supeior, or wish to control other races. The three definitions I provided of racism.
'Yes, some people think it unfair to seemingly give blacks a pass when criticizing whites, but not vice versa. That is because of how some people try and represent the argument, like you have just done.' Yes, semantics are the root source of the misunderstandings here, do you feel a draft?
It isn't semanitcs. It is the way you framed the argument. You frame as if all things are equal between blacks and whites, and no matter how much you deny it, it just is not true.
"'Biased amendments'? Such as?'...oh, I don't know...Affirmative action? Being the product of working class individuals and being deemed somehow 'advantaged' I was not afforded any opportunities other than what I could claw out for myself. The result being that I now get to be on call for every beck and command ordered by the persons I outperformed all the way until the top, when what is really important in this country takes hold, whom you were born to. I somehow fail to find the justice therein."
Again, the way you frame it makes perfect sense to your point of view. But your frames is misleading. It is not deeming advantage due to race, it is deeming disadvantage due to race, and an attempt to level the playing field. You can disagree on the merits of such ideas all you want, and you might make some valid points, but framing it as you do, you are attemping to mislead by suggesting the "advantage" exists in a vacuum and has nothing to do with past discrimination.
"'Should nothing be done to correct a wrong against a minority?' Sure, on an individual basis, not by assuming that their race is the determining factor of what they are deserving of or what they've been wronged by."
It IS done on an individual basis. The only reason race is involved, is because racism is the reason it was required in the first place.
"'A wrong that has prevented the minority from having access to the same educational, social and economic advanatagesl as the majority.' Why should race play a part at all? The government offers grants to people of a given economic standard. Will this not encompass the poor minorities? "
Race plays a part, because race was the reason they were denied these advantages to begin with. I do sort of agree with part of what you are saying. I think we have reached a point where we should change the focus of such progams to be geared more towards economic status rather than race alone. By doing that, it levels the playing field even more.
"Jimahl, you are a well intentioned person, I am not getting through to you with anything I say,(I suppose you feel likewise) but try a position besides left field for a change."
If you feel that my liberal leanings are a bias, that may or may not be true. But it doesn't mean I am wrong.
"I'm not trying to box your ears relentlessly but to knock the sense into a person highly capable of perception beyond the sheeple replicating by the minute."
Trust me, my ears are fine. I must admit, that was the best back-handed compliment I have seen in a long time. So because I think there is some merit in such concepts as affirmative action, I am just one of the lemmings following the leader?
"Why do I need to qualify my uncanny rebuttals to you? So you won't dismiss me for not being a lefty, not to be haughty or condescending. Why am I talking to myself? A severe drought of worthwhile individuals to correspond with. Put that in your superiority pipe and smoke it. "
What is "uncanny" about your rebuttals. They are rather run of the mill, and I have heard these arguments many times before. And I have not dismissed you, since I am still repsonding. Do you always answer your own questions? And btw there is no smoking in here! Uh oh, is that just another "lefty" crusade?
Is this to become a contest of will? If so, you may win out, because the following post will be complete unabridged reiteration. You have completely agreed with everything I've said whether you know it or not(it's trending towards not) We've played the entire game on your understanding of the word, with your provided definition. I argued that your dismissal of racism as the aftereffect of castigation(Thank you, I do hold the basic understanding of the word, however, you may find it informative to learn that castes can and indeed tend to be meted out by race) Is based on item 2 of your given definition. I conceded the conclusion, but countered that this is best defined as a Apartheid state. You respond that it isn't I say the subjugation of a people by a people...is apartheid because it implies policies and position with which to do it
You are completely oblivious and give the rebuttal: "And? Are you saying the majority in this country doesn't hold the reins of power?"
The vicious circular logic ensues.
Elsewhere, I ask you the question; 'I can believe till the end of the day that I am superior to you in every manner imaginable because of my race, but without the avenues to institute my exalted status I am no racist?'
Again, apparently obfuscated you write; "Wrong, even the thought that your race is superior to another is racist. Not all racism is institutionalized." I agree but again I say this is infringing on supremacism, not mere racism(my understanding admittedly askew somewhat from the totality of your definition) especially when put into practice.
Jumping to this misreading; I say; 'Let's refer back to your given definition, '1. a BELIEF OR DOCTRINE that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.' That's a mighty big 'OR' there,'
jimahl says: Why is that a mighty big 'or'? There is not a big distinction between doctrine and belief. A doctrine is just a more formally defined set of beliefs.
I add (okay, this is new material): So you are saying that racism(minority seeded) needn't be confined to indignant behavior? Again you agree with me.
Why the emphasis of "OR"?
a more formally defined set of beliefs a.k.a. policies a.k.a. state or gov't policies I am arguing from the particular in this instance not the collective as I have not confined myself to proving every case but any case. I'll leave you to that endeavor.
I'll end the tirade of your seeming contradictions and misconstrued missives with this:
You; ''Your socialogical comparisons to criminal gangs and prisons do not represent any corellation to society is as a whole. I find that rather ludicrous.'
Me: Pray tell why? Some elaboration required.'
You again; Because is is a very narrow focus on the group dynamics of criminals. It no way is representative of all of society. You are trying to imply correlation where none exists.
New again; A very narrow focus on the group dynamics of criminals? Yes, a criminal's first priority is to ensure everyone of his cohorts share the same male antecedent. This is sarcasm, wouldn't have you countering it. You consider race a very narrow focus?
I contend that these are a microcosm of males outside of the majority, both inside prison and out. I can see why you feel the need to discount it, it completely destroys your premise, but you cannot set the parameters of the discussion to best suit your position.
The above contains ad hominem attacks not to slander the recipient but to call into question his understanding of the argument as it has transpired. I do not advocate the use, especially on good ol' Jimahl only dutifully adhering to Amy Goodman and Jon Stewart and whichever else clove smoking guru calls the shots for him.
You would think someone who has heard my arguments numerous times would have come up with an intelligent reply, wonders never cease.
"Do you always answer your own questions?" Look what good leaving that task up to you has done.
If we have to prohibit smoking can we not start by asking you to extinguish that which is puffing forth from your rear orifice?
Jimahl, the subjugation of a people would require the reins of power being held by some other peoples. You have narrowed the definition of racism to include only addendum 2 of your provided definition. "2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination." This is an Apartheid state as we have come to coin the policies. " Appatheid is just a form of government based on racism, and not the definition of racism itself." Your words. I can believe till the end of the day that I am superior to you in every manner imaginable because of my race, but without the avenues to institute my exalted status I am no racist? Let's refer back to your given definition, "1. a BELIEF OR DOCTRINE that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others." That's a mighty big "OR" there, look again. "3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races." Hatred and intolerance are independant of caste, You do make a point when you suggest that if they result from castigation they may better indicate insufferable resentment. This is why I offer the gang correlations.
"Your socialogical comparisons to criminal gangs and prisons do not represent any corellation to society is as a whole. I find that rather ludicrous." Pray tell why? Some elaboration required.
"I guess there are other types of segragation that have nothing to do with supremecy of one group over another, but just a desire to be apart. But that is not what we are talking about. That is not racism. Racism is about control and supiorority." I'll go out on a limb and speak for a few of us here and say that this is precisely what we are talking about. I'll also go so far as to say that we are all to some extent proud of our culture, look at all the cultural festivals around the country. That desire is not to be apart, but to retain what our forebears fought to maintain, and I argue that it is ingrained especially in the male of the species as a whole to preserve, as I've said, rightly or wrongly.
"Yes, some people think it unfair to seemingly give blacks a pass when criticizing whites, but not vice versa. That is because of how some people try and represent the argument, like you have just done."
Yes, semantics are the root source of the misunderstandings here, do you feel a draft?
"'Biased amendments'? Such as?"...oh, I don't know...Affirmative action? Being the product of working class individuals and being deemed somehow "advantaged" I was not afforded any opportunities other than what I could claw out for myself. The result being that I now get to be on call for every beck and command ordered by the persons I outperformed all the way until the top, when what is really important in this country takes hold, whom you were born to. I somehow fail to find the justice therein.
"Should nothing be done to correct a wrong against a minority?" Sure, on an individual basis, not by assuming that their race is the determining factor of what they are deserving of or what they've been wronged by.
"A wrong that has prevented the minority from having access to the same educational, social and economic advanatagesl as the majority." Why should race play a part at all? The government offers grants to people of a given economic standard. Will this not encompass the poor minorities?
Jimahl, you are a well intentioned person, I am not getting through to you with anything I say,(I suppose you feel likewise) but try a position besides left field for a change. I'm not trying to box your ears relentlessly but to knock the sense into a person highly capable of perception beyond the sheeple replicating by the minute. Why do I need to qualify my uncanny rebuttals to you? So you won't dismiss me for not being a lefty, not to be haughty or condescending. Why am I talking to myself? A severe drought of worthwhile individuals to correspond with. Put that in your superiority pipe and smoke it.
Jimahl, I think you are narrowing the definition of racism to a policy that is better defined as an apartheid state. To counter the argument, as you understand the definition of racism to be, we require a state without a majority population coming from any particular nation of people. I am unaware of such a state. Perhaps the next best solution would be to find any examples of two minority groups segregating themselves along a racial divide. The obvious example that springs to mind would be the demographic compilations of street gangs in the United States. Latinos enbody the overwhelming majority in such gangs as Latin Kings, MS-13. Blacks compose the majority of Crips, Bloods. One could argue that the composition of these gangs is derived moreso by neighborhood affilitions, but then the counterargument to this accusation would be that this is itself another example of minority evaluated segregation or racism. Another glaring example is found in prison society. Aryan Brotherhood being white, Mexican Mafia, Nuestra being latino, Black Guerilla Family being black.
Broadening the question back to how I interpret the word...well I wouldn't call the following examples of mere Racism...but Supremacism: Japanese vis-a-vis Ainu Arabian Iraqis vis-a-vis Kurds Chinese vis-a-vis Tibetans Zimbabwean vis-a-vis Rhodesian Israeli vis-a-vis Arabian Palestinian (more an example of ethno supremacism) Latinos vis-a-vis Indigenous South American Indians Black Africans vis-a-vis Bushmen.
Taking a look back at the "Y" haplotype and its dispersal in comparison to the Mitochondrial dispersal, one can immediately see that the human male is a tribalist. I'm neither defending nor demeaning the trait. I believe we do ourselves a disservice by dismissing this reality. I admire you for transcending your boundaries. As you can see, many people find your interpretation of the problem unfair. This is the inevitable result when we institute biased amendments to supplant past wrongs. We only shift the weight to the other side.
The definition of racism from dictonary.com:
Now if a minority race is being subjugated by the majority race, do you think the majority is practicing racism against the minority? Seems pretty clear that they are based on all three of these definitions.
Now, if the minorty hates the majority due to that subjugation, is that exactly the same thing as the majorities racism? I say no. The only definition that possibly fits this scenario is the 3rd one, but not really. Their hatred is not based on race per se, it is based on the minorities experience and treatment by the majority. If it weren't for the racism directed at them, there is no reason to believe they would themselves feel any hatred toward the majority.
There is a BIG difference.
miscegenymiser, I did not narrow the definition at all, and it is not MY understanding of it. I provided the exact dictionary definition. There is no abiguity as you are trying to suggest. Appatheid is just a form of government based on racism, and not the definition of racism itself.
Your socialogical comparisons to criminal gangs and prisons do not represent any corellation to society is as a whole. I find that rather ludicrous.
I guess there are other types of segragation that have nothing to do with supremecy of one group over another, but just a desire to be apart. But that is not what we are talking about. That is not racism. Racism is about control and supiorority.
Yes, some people think it unfair to seemingly give blacks a pass when criticizing whites, but not vice versa. That is because of how some people try and represent the argument, like you have just done.
"Biased amendments"? Such as? Should nothing be done to correct a wrong against a minority? A wrong that has prevented the minority from having access to the same educational, social and economic advanatagesl as the majority.
Anyone is capable of racism. It makes me sick when people say only caucasion people can be racist. I dont even like hearing the term reverse racism because racial discrimation against anyone is exactly the same thing. I went to school with a lot of pacific island students and the truth was, they were more racist towards the nz european students than the other way around. For the most part, everyone got on really well, regardless of race but there were a few students who were very judgemental and yet they couldn t see that they were being racist because they had the mistaken idea that because they were not white, they were incapable of being racist. I think everyone just needs to stop judging people based on race. We're all the same no matter what colour our skin is. When it comes down to it, why do we seperate ourselves based on race anyway? The way we look is determined by genetics! I could have more genes in common with someone from Africa or Asia than a european.
I think its false, but people only seem to care when it is this way round. I mean, im white and I am not racist, if I have a problem with someone its because of them and how they are towards me and others, not by their appearance or race etc. however I find that generally, people can have no problem with someone due to their race, but because of their own insecurities, they assume its because of their race. for example, the famous answer to everything by some people "is it because I is black" some people have massive chips on their shoulders. but its the same as many things, if a man discriminates against a woman, she may assume its because he is sexist etc. interesting question though, in london, their are black only clubs...not considered racist, but white only clubs are...why?
The sad fact is most view it that way. The truth is there is racism coming from all races. The only difference is and I know people are going to take this how they want to but it is true. I am not being racist when I say it either. You can not have a whites only anything. You can have any other race only anything. If you have a whites only it brings back the thoughts of segregation. It is accepted in society for someone to say cracker, honky, white trash, redneck...ect. Yet the numerous other slurs towards another race is not. So given the outlook here I think that only white people can be considered racist as a whole.
On a lighter note, the best racially charged debate I ever witnessed was this (on a bus):
black guy: get up cracker, you in the ghetto now, you don't get to sit where you want! white dude: what the fdid you just say? BG: I said get up cracker! WG: I ain't no cracker BG: you white WG: I'm half Cherokee BG: you don't look like no Injun WG:F you BG: f*** you! your people enslaved my people! WG: white people exterminated my people, you should consider yourself lucky BG: uh... bus pulls over as the bus driver had called the cops and the cops enter. All parties are removed from the bus.
Everyone can be racist. It is basically prejudicial attitude and behavior toward people of a given race (or institutional practices that subordinate people), I mean technically you can be racist towards your own race...
The reason it doesn't seem ok for white people to be racist but for other people to be racist towards white people, is because they are the dominant group in the U.S. (I.e. are the majority in number atleast for now, hold the most power, money etc...). Ofcourse that doesn't make it ok, but I guess that's just how some people see it...
okay that is Major BS... Any one can be racist... everyone has some racism in them.. EVERYONE no matter what their race is... why do most people think that only whites are racist.. so many people think that blacks aren't racist.. but they are too (an example,) black people call whites crackers and every ones all like that isnt racism but it truly is if we call them monkeys or "N***" we get in trouble and labled as racist... but if they do it its fine.. that is stupid.. and just proves that we aren't the only ones that are racist...
I personally, cannot stomach those paleolithic Irish potato eaters. Give us a break with all the Guinness, Celtics, Notre Dame, deifying already. Go back to Erin you Erin go Braggarts. Bobby Flay is not the second coming of St. Patrick no matter how much air time the controlled media give him. That solifuges time in the sun has been up for a while now. Why, on this earth, the Anglo-Saxon People didn't put up that "Irish Need Not Apply" placcard on the Statue of Liberty, like Eiffel advised, I'll rue to my last breath.
That may be the most racist comment I've heard. She's suggesting that non-whites are incapable of judging a book by its cover? She'd be horrified to hear some of the slang terms that are used for whites, by people speaking languages other than English. I have strong connections to at least 3 other racial minority groups and trust me, there is strong prejudice against whites, that comes from all three.
Whether you like it or not, humans are tribal.
Jimahl, I agree with your points but were they directed at a particular answer or the original question?
In a nutshell you're saying that racial minorities are not racist when and if their complaints about whites are based on the way they feel they've been treated by whites. Of course there's a big difference.
But aside from the repression factor, non-whites are surely capable of being truly racist and not only towards whites. Do you agree?
Reverse racism exists, but it is usually just the persecuted minority responding to the controlling majority. Generally it is the controlling majority using their power to put down or limit the socio-economic standards of the minority.
But no matter what, we should not be looking for answers from the hosts of the "View". While I think she is technically correct, her statement does nothing but further divide people.
There is no such thing as "reverse racism." If white people hate black people just because they're black, it's racism. If black people hate white people just because they're white, it's racism.
Racism refers to ANY race feeling prejudice towards ANY OTHER race. It does not simply refer to whites. Therefore, no such thing as "reverse racism" exists.
Andyburton,
Excuse me but are you saying that only those who aren't as good of a believer as you are the only racists? Because if you are, you are wrong and you're a jerk.
If you didn't mean that, please explain it more simply so your message is clear.
its this simple people: I drive trucks for a living and I see Samoan Pride, Hawaiian Pride, Black Pride, Gay Pride, Guatamalan Pride, ETC stickers on peoples' cars all the time. What do you suppose would happen if I put a White Pride sticker on my truck?
No. Everyone regardless of where are you from or your ethnicity can become racist. And I say become, because it is a process, normally and individual learns this behavior in private settings such as their home, peers, relatives, loved ones etc.
I think I was answering the original question, as well as the discussion in general.
Yes, any person from any race can be racist, in the right circumstance. But in general, racism usually emanates from the majority, not the minority.
1000 pardons.
Please...put that shillelagh down...no need to resort to violence. I swear to St. Patrick, I'll kiss blarney smack on the a$$ if you give me a three step head start. You can keep the gold.
Definitely. I have seen a ton of African Americans say how much they hate whites. Watch the Jeffersons, and you can tell George is a racist, the black Archie Bunker.
no!!! everyones is racist in their own way but not in a mean evil way but a lot of people are not racist where they won't tlk 2 people except their own race
Yes I know if you are white and say I am voting for mc cain you are a racist.
but if you are black voting for obama is ok.
ANY COLOR CAN BE RACIST . TO THINK THAT ONLY WHITES CAN BE RACIST IS IN ITSELF ,SOMEWHAT, A RACIST STATEMENT.
Other races can definitely be racists. Honestly, you don't hear about as much, but its out there.
no I know a lot of blacks who are predjudiced against whites.
EVERYONE IS RACIST IN THEIR OWN WAY.. (LITTLE OR BIG).. ;)
Don't you dare dis my guiness!!!
No eveyone can be
ok your right
NO IT CANO'T
false
false
No
