Don't Impose Your Democratic Racism on Me!

[RobinFinderson]

Yes, they can be racist against other minorities.

why does it have to negatively affect whites? Why can't the question be how does their racism negatively affect other minorities?

But they can't be racist against majorities?

The idea that minorities can't be racist comes from specific model of racism. It is not to say that minorities can not have ignorant views about race.

In a nutshell, proponents of this model of racism argue that the kind of racism that really counts is when widespread social attitudes that convey power and privilege break along racial lines. Thus, when white people use the word 'nigger,' it isn't the same as when black people use the word 'cracker,' because when the white person uses the word, he is contributing to the reinforcement of cultural norms that have been traditionally used to marginalize black people. In contrast, calling a white person a 'cracker' is equally ignorant, but it doesn't contribute to a system of widespread attitudes that culminate in the marginalization of white people in the larger society.

I think there are some pretty good arguments for and against this model of racism. On the pro side, it invites a more in-depth look at why racism is bad, noting that where racism really matters is where it does people real harm. On the other hand, the model invites people to dismiss the kind of ignorant views about race that many people hold, simply because those views are relatively harmless to anyone but the holder of the ignorant idea.

[woot]

The idea that minorities can't be racist comes from specific model of racism. It is not to say that minorities can not have ignorant views about race.

In a nutshell, proponents of this model of racism argue that the kind of racism that really counts is when widespread social attitudes that convey power and privilege break along racial lines. Thus, when white people use the word 'nigger,' it isn't the same as when black people use the word 'cracker,' because when the white person uses the word, he is contributing to the reinforcement of cultural norms that have been traditionally used to marginalize black people. In contrast, calling a white person a 'cracker' is equally ignorant, but it doesn't contribute to a system of widespread attitudes that culminate in the marginalization of white people in the larger society.

I think there are some pretty good arguments for and against this model of racism. On the pro side, it invites a more in-depth look at why racism is bad, noting that where racism really matters is where it does people real harm. On the other hand, the model invites people to dismiss the kind of ignorant views about race that many people hold, simply because those views are relatively harmless to anyone but the holder of the ignorant idea.

Thanks for enlightening me. I do think that a strong argument could be made, however, that racism in the black community against white people can contribute to widespread marginalization of the larger society, at least from the perspective of the black community. That's how we get the prejudice against black people "acting white" when they try to work hard and get an education.

The model you've described is an important one, but I think it's folly to say that racism doesn't count if it doesn't contribute to one specific result.

[il Padrino Ute]

Had I been in that class that the writer of this article was in, my answer to the question - which is why this article was written - was that I would mind my own business and do my work.

That article is yet another example of how idiots allow political correctness to control their lives.

[The_Tick]

In a nutshell, proponents of this model of racism argue that the kind of racism that really counts is when widespread social attitudes that convey power and privilege break along racial lines. Thus, when white people use the word 'nigger,' it isn't the same as when black people use the word 'cracker,' because when the white person uses the word, he is contributing to the reinforcement of cultural norms that have been traditionally used to marginalize black people. In contrast, calling a white person a 'cracker' is equally ignorant, but it doesn't contribute to a system of widespread attitudes that culminate in the marginalization of white people in the larger society.

Robin...I like your summary, thanks for typing that up.

The only thing I really see with the part that I quote above though is a double standard.

At some point, we have to quit seeing color and just seeing race...as in human.

What we are allowing to happen with "special interest" items in my opinion is allowing folks to have a crutch.

Does the model that you used have a specific name? I would be interested in reading up on it a little more. Thanks again.

[wuapinmon]

So basically what you are saying...

immutable circumstances and history have given me that others do not enjoy = white guilt.

You didn't choose to be born white, your student didn't choose to be born black. It just happened.

You chose to become a teacher and change your station.

He chose to become a student, to get an education, to change his station.

You are the same. But he empowered himself. He is proving my theory, as I am sure the Coker isn't going to hand him anything because of his ethnicity. He is going to have to "earn" it all on his own.

As it should be.

Tick, I agree with almost everything that you've said, and I don't want to rehash this old argument that we keep coming back to, but I just want to say, and I know that you'll want to respond to this, that even thought it "just happened" there is a privilege that comes from being on the majority side of that happening, and I don't know that hard work alone can overcome a system that serves to keep the poor, poor.

If you knew that your dad or uncle had shot another man's toe off, and you and that man were in a foot race, would you give him one step of a head start. A toe's not that big a deal, but it does affect the race.

(I know this isn't a perfect model, so Babs, Indy, MRD, tooblue, et. al)

But they can't be racist against majorities?

See Robin's explanation.

While I agree that homosexual homophobes are weird, they seem pretty common among Republican politicians. Agreed that it'd be even weirder once they're out of the closet.

There are also issues in the queer community involving bisexuals being disliked by homosexuals, and flamboyant homosexuals being disliked by other homosexuals.

Is it basic human nature to want to exclude the Other from the group?

The idea that minorities can't be racist comes from specific model of racism. It is not to say that minorities can not have ignorant views about race.

In a nutshell, proponents of this model of racism argue that the kind of racism that really counts is when widespread social attitudes that convey power and privilege break along racial lines. Thus, when white people use the word 'nigger,' it isn't the same as when black people use the word 'cracker,' because when the white person uses the word, he is contributing to the reinforcement of cultural norms that have been traditionally used to marginalize black people. In contrast, calling a white person a 'cracker' is equally ignorant, but it doesn't contribute to a system of widespread attitudes that culminate in the marginalization of white people in the larger society.

I think there are some pretty good arguments for and against this model of racism. On the pro side, it invites a more in-depth look at why racism is bad, noting that where racism really matters is where it does people real harm. On the other hand, the model invites people to dismiss the kind of ignorant views about race that many people hold, simply because those views are relatively harmless to anyone but the holder of the ignorant idea.

Can I copy this and use it in my class (with a little editing) with proper attribution?

[The_Tick]

Tick, I agree with almost everything that you've said, and I don't want to rehash this old argument that we keep coming back to, but I just want to say, and I know that you'll want to respond to this, that even thought it "just happened" there is a privilege that comes from being on the majority side of that happening, and I don't know that hard work alone can overcome a system that serves to keep the poor, poor.

If you knew that your dad or uncle had shot another man's toe off, and you and that man were in a foot race, would you give him one step of a head start. A toe's not that big a deal, but it does affect the race.

Let me ask you a question before I answer...

The person that I am racing are they

6'2"?
360 lbs?
Have a bad back?
out of shape?

If they answer to all of that is "yes" then I will be more than happy to give them some type of head start. No problem.

If the answer to any of that is "no" then no, they start where I do.

Or better yet...

If they are 5'10", 180 lbs, and in great shape...but only missing a toe will they give me a head start?

Either way...I will probably lose the race, but I will run the race and not bitch. If you know anything about me you will know that regardless of the situation I am going to give my 100% and happy with where I end up.

[wuapinmon]

Either way...I will probably lose the race, but I will run the race and not bitch. If you know anything about me you will know that regardless of the situation I am going to give my 100% and happy with where I end up.

I believe this about you. Keep in mind that I'm not saying that hard work isn't a virtue. Hard work and an education are what I think we all need to do well. But, there's a story by Vonnegut called "Harrison Bergeron" that I think might help you understand where I'm coming from on this issue.

Link to full text:
http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

While the story talks about the consequences of extreme and enforced 'equality.' Imagine if you were Harrison Bergeron, only normal, but still with the bag of weights around your neck.

[Katy Lied]

But they can't be racist against majorities?

Yes, they can be racist against majorities. I was just thinking of minority-on-minority discrimination.

When in grad school, I applied for a summer lecturer position in economics, restricted to minority candidates. I dutifully filled out my packet, got together letters of rec, and sent it off. I was called for an interview and during the phone call was asked the derivation of my last name. When I answered, there was an awkward silence, and the administrator told me, "I'm sorry, you're not eligible for this position, based on your race."

I informed her that according to affirmative action guidelines, I most certainly was a member of a minority. She told me, "this position is restricted to hispanics and african americans." I pointed out that the job description said minority, and how did she know that the intent of the grant (from the Federal Govt) was specifically for two races. She said, "Look, you wont get any further in the (selection) process. If it's any consolation, asians need not apply either."

How does the Man of Color get away with oppressing me this way?

[woot]

Yes, they can be racist against majorities. I was just thinking of minority-on-minority discrimination.

When in grad school, I applied for a summer lecturer position in economics, restricted to minority candidates. I dutifully filled out my packet, got together letters of rec, and sent it off. I was called for an interview and during the phone call was asked the derivation of my last name. When I answered, there was an awkward silence, and the administrator told me, "I'm sorry, you're not eligible for this position, based on your race."

I informed her that according to affirmative action guidelines, I most certainly was a member of a minority. She told me, "this position is restricted to hispanics and african americans." I pointed out that the job description said minority, and how did she know that the intent of the grant (from the Federal Govt) was specifically for two races. She said, "Look, you wont get any further in the (selection) process. If it's any consolation, asians need not apply either."

How does the Man of Color get away with oppressing me this way?

Yeah, that's <redacted> up.

On the other hand, my department just hired a very bright young star that it otherwise would never have had funding for, because his salary is going to be paid by a third-party institute that funds minority positions.

[pellegrino]

How does the Man of Color get away with oppressing me this way?

it's not the man of color oppressing you, it's the white man trying to repay past damages to a specific subset of minorities.

The idea that minorities can't be racist comes from specific model of racism. It is not to say that minorities can not have ignorant views about race.

In a nutshell, proponents of this model of racism argue that the kind of racism that really counts is when widespread social attitudes that convey power and privilege break along racial lines. Thus, when white people use the word 'nigger,' it isn't the same as when black people use the word 'cracker,' because when the white person uses the word, he is contributing to the reinforcement of cultural norms that have been traditionally used to marginalize black people. In contrast, calling a white person a 'cracker' is equally ignorant, but it doesn't contribute to a system of widespread attitudes that culminate in the marginalization of white people in the larger society.

I think there are some pretty good arguments for and against this model of racism. On the pro side, it invites a more in-depth look at why racism is bad, noting that where racism really matters is where it does people real harm. On the other hand, the model invites people to dismiss the kind of ignorant views about race that many people hold, simply because those views are relatively harmless to anyone but the holder of the ignorant idea.

Thank you Robin for eloquently stating the point that I was trying to make, but was too rushed (and too lazy) to write this morning. You should be a civil rights leader.

I think it's important that we all realize that racism is about defining what is normal and what is not normal, by default the majority race gets the majority of input on this definition. That's how all societies work. In American and Western European culture normal = white and abnormal = every other color. It's important to be aware of the cultural (even institutional) nature of racism in order to treat others humanely.

[BigFatMeanie]

it's not the man of color oppressing you, it's the white man trying to repay past damages to a specific subset of minorities.

Why that specific subset of minorities and not other subsets such as Native Americans, people that descended from interned Americans in WWII, Mormons, and on and on?

Assuming you can make a good argument for repaying past damages for a specific minority to the exclusion of other minorities, at what point will you consider the past damages repaid? When does society say the debt is paid and truly become a "post-racial" society?