Can only white people be racist?
By Staff • 3 years ago •
10
Defining and detecting “racism” is difficult. If I have negative thoughts about racial groups, but never express them or act on them, am I racist? If I’m an editor at a publication that publishes personal essays about life experience, if I primarily publish minority authors because I find the minority experience to be a rich subject for description, am I racist?
These questions could go on all day, with any one of a number of tricky edge cases illustrating that racism is a somewhat foggy concept, despite its perennial place in the national discourse. As a result, the divergence in extant definitions of “racism” is striking.
Currently, there appear to be two competing definitions of racism vying for mainstream popularity. The first is a classical, limited definition of racism: explicit prejudicial acts towards a person based on their (real or perceived) biological grouping. The second is inflected by concepts of social justice and power struggles: Racism is the exercise or expression of racially prejudicial societal power.
Under the second definition, it’s coherent to at least claim that white people are the only racists in America, because white people arguably hold the most institutional power. As Rohn Kenyatta writes in Black Agenda Report : “Racism, inherently, implies power; Black People in America have virtually no institutional power.” Similar claims are advanced by social justice oriented associations like the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Center , whose page links to other examples.
Now, the case gets thornier once we proceed to the individual level: If I’m a black judge and I’m racist towards a white convict, don’t I have institutional power? Does my grouping really matter in that case? Nevertheless, you could sensibly claim that whites have the plurality of institutional power, and thus inflect the justice system in ways that benefit their interests.
However, why muddy the waters by adding all of this conceptual weight to the word “racism?” Why not introduce another term to the lexicon and leave the original word alone? (Some progressives have done this by distinguishing “structural racism” from the plain article.) It seems like there’s only one practical reason to do this: to demonize a group of people because some of them hold the majority of institutional power, and excuse everyone who isn’t in that group. In other words, to make white people the bad guys.
Under the common-sense definition, matters are simpler. It is manifestly untrue that only whites commit racist acts in America. Beyond small-scale everyday racist incidents that go unrecorded, we can point to historical events like the 1991 Crown Heights riots , in which black residents violently retaliated against the local Jewish community after a local Rabbi accidentally struck and killed a black child with his car. A more recent example comes from 2017, when four black youths in Chicago tortured a white peer while chanting “F*** white people” while streaming the event on the Internet.
So, ultimately, the evaluation of this claim is simple. If you want to claim that anti-white racist acts don’t count as racism, then you need to radically change the definition of racism to villainize white people and excuse everyone else from culpability. But if you’re using plain language, everyone can be racist. And since racism only goes down, bigotry up is tacitly allowed, fostering division. The addition of the power dimension for racism has taken the eye off the legitimate inaccuracy and fallacy of bigotry. Since only whites can be racist and all whites are racist, anti-racism means anti white by these definitions
What do you think?
Note: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of this website or its members.
Create your free account
JacksonNought
Level 8
Dec 18, 2020
1
CookieMonster
Level 8
Dec 18, 2020
1
eschatologyguy
Level 9
Dec 18, 2020
2
KeithThroop
Level 9
Dec 18, 2020
7
Satch
Level 7
Dec 18, 2020
1
MisterEdmonds
Level 6
Dec 17, 2020
1
MisterEdmonds
Level 6
Dec 17, 2020
1
tracycoyle
Level 8
Dec 17, 2020
11
Write Comment
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
58 comments (51 - 58)
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.It really does come down to the definition. If we are talking the USA, and institutionalized racism, then yes it really only applies to white people, because they are the majority and have power and privilege. Just as saying if we are discussing institutionalized sexism in the USA, it only applies to men. USA institutionalized religious bigotry - only Christians.
If we talk about the "ism" in general, as in racism is being prejudiced based on race, then yes any race is capable of being racist towards another.
JacksonNought
Level 8
Dec 18, 2020
1
Article makes a good point but misses the main point by its lack of historical context.
The root of the argument is neo-marxist from the Frankfurt school, we do not live in a marxist society. Therefor it has no place on the statute or in an organisations rules andy more than " Business owners exploit workers" and following that down the road to the point were you can confiscate property.
Likewise the OPs topic like my example should be handled with care because of its extremist nature(Extremists lead with the group, centerists start with the individual).
CookieMonster
Level 8
Dec 18, 2020
1
"The issues are not the issue. The issue is the Revolution" -Saul Alinsky
Which means BLM, Feminism, White Privilege, LGBT, etc. are not the issue. They are the distraction.
I see them as wepeons not issues.
@CookieMonster that's the bigger way of looking at it.
Complaints of racism in America is about 150 years too late. Even during the 60's civil rights movement, there were more whites who agreed with MLK, with many joining the marches, so there's that. Look at the blacks in SA today killing off white South Afrikaaners, by the way. Here the blacks are the racists, and it is institutional, as the Black SA government is pushing for it. I'm Filipino, by the way, all the way from the 
eschatologyguy
Level 9
Dec 18, 2020
2
My own experience has taught me that racism itself definitely knows no race; it can affect anyone of any race. For example, for part of my childhood I was a member of the only white family in an all black neighborhood. There were a couple of old white ladies that lived in the area, but we were the only other white people, and we were the only family. I and my three siblings lived with my father there, and later with my father and stepmother, and I often experienced attacks against me simply because I was white. I was called every name they could think of (the terms honky and cracker being prominent ones), and I was often threatened and sometimes assaulted. Groups would often follow me home from school deriding and threatening me. On at least one occasion a very large group surrounded our house throwing rocks at the house and shouting threats at us, but, thankfully, the police were able to disperse them before things got really bad. This was during my formative years in the early seventies, but finally my father and stepmother were able to afford to move us away from there and into a better neighborhood and school system.
Sadly, I was eventually bused right back into an even worse situation that I had previously left behind, and I ended up being one of a very few white kids in an all black school, at which I once again experienced being on the receiving end of racism. Now, I'm not saying that I never saw any racist words or actions from white people toward black people during those years. My own maternal grandfather could be a pretty racist guy. My father, however, would not allow any racist attitudes in our family. He had been an ardent supporter of MLK and the Civil Rights Movement, and he constantly pointed out that we could not judge a whole race because of the actions of a few. One of his very best friends was a black man, a man who often took me and my siblings on outings so that my father and stepmother could be alone together. He was kind of like an uncle to us. We also had many good black friends in our church, which uniquely (at least at that time) had a mix of both white and black families. Anyway, my experience taught me that racism existed among both white and black people (as well as among other groups) and that there were also very good people -- people who are not racist -- among other races as well. So, I know quite well that it is not only white people who can be racist. The very notion is one of the more stupid lies I think I've ever heard. All people are sinners, and all sinners are capable of just about any sin, including racism.
Oh, and by the way, NO ONE liked forced busing! At least not that I can recall.
KeithThroop
Level 9
Dec 18, 2020
7
@KeithThroop I'm sorry you had to endure that.
@ZuzecaSape That video certainly brings back memories of the time.
@KeithThroop I'm sorry. 
@ZuzecaSape I appreciate the sympathy, but I'm quite fine. I have gotten past the problems I experienced growing up. I now find the memories more helpful than hurtful for the most part.
@KeithThroop Forgiveness frees us from the burden of resentment.
I, on the other hand, am happy to bear that burden for the sake of the survival of my Volk. If it had been a sacrifice that bore the fruit that was intended (i.e., racial harmony), I could let it go, but our goodwill has only been repaid with animosity and spite. I, for one, have no qualms returning the sentiment.
@ZuzecaSape You raise good points. For my part, I have forgiven past hurts and moved on, but I do understand that we cannot simply overlook continued spiteful and unforgiving behavior from others involved.
Thank you for sharing your personal experience. I have been there from the black perspective when other black people unprovoked ridicule white people in a whole and I dislike it. I have also been around black people who didn't not care what you looked like. Like you said, it goes both ways.
I think my current issue is that it is perfectly acceptable within the black community to say whatever hatred you want about another race and no one will call you out on it in fear of being called a racist. I am hoping for this type of mindset to one day disappear.
I can't remember who said it but the one was something like "Racism was on life support but people are trying to resurrect it". The issues of the past are for the most part long gone because we've progressed past that point....it's just that some people want us to keep living in the past so they can manipulate and manufacture victims.
Some degree of what may be considered racist tendencies are innate in human nature; a product of our evolution. Until modern times, different often meant a threat, so primates developed a natural fear of those who look and behave in foreign ways. Actual racism is the act of discriminating against a person or group of people due to their race. We can't help our natural tendencies, but we can think better in light of our contemporary multicultural civilization, and choose to act accordingly.
Satch
Level 7
Dec 18, 2020
1
Ah yes, but we are not instinct only driven animals - we can exceed our biology, our nature and use the matter between the ears to 'evolve' to be better than that...
@Satch >>different often meant a threat
Different oftentimes does mean a threat.
Being unfamiliar with a type of people isn’t racism, that’s just natural stress
Disowning someone because of the family they are born into is racism.
You don’t get to claim racism because of natural family differences. Procreating doesn’t breed this out, respect and allowing to pursue society in a healthy manner is not racist. Reacting to a group logically isn’t racism. Condemning people by stereotypes can be racist, not allowing people to have generalizations based of group behaviors is repression.
MisterEdmonds
Level 6
Dec 17, 2020
1
If you want to claim white people are only racist,
Then don’t claim other races exist. You could say white people are colonialist, but that’s not all whites, only some governments. Also just because white people are all transparent skin tone, doesn’t mean they are all the same, also white people are often racist against other white races. Irish vs English vs French vs German
Also when ethnic groups or woman climb to the top of what was organized by white ethnic leaders aka Founding Fathers of American Government, you don’t get to say that it’s systematically repressing, actually it’s bringing your group up with them proportionately. The ancestors of slaves benefitted from the labor and success of the slavery. Those governments that sold the Africans into the slave trade could be racist, or they could be, it could been territorial rivals based off religion, not explicitly race based negativity.
Why all the success coming from a straight “white” Christian culture, surely all these ancestry lands that exist prior to America must be champions of social order. Like the East... (researches China, India, soviet union, Mongolians etc.) why is America not correct and most correct simultaneously. Or are there pig backing and standing in the platform which giants built to say they were always wrong to have built a successful system the repressed could control? Why do we have to take away the system from those aligned with its founding and progress? Where are the other societies that let parasitic control after building up a hyper-succesful. Ex: Design and the build the titanic, then give the titanic to eskimos because they are underrepresented in the project? Then shame the builders for not building good enough, meanwhile they’ve never accomplished a single project independent from that system which jealous feed makes people want to abuse the project. Anyone have that kid that ruins what the creative kid built?
MisterEdmonds
Level 6
Dec 17, 2020
1
And even if it did, we've had a black President, a black Attorney General, there are black Governors and many black Mayors and we have many blacks in Congress and state legislatures. Not to mention black Police Chiefs, black Generals and black leaders in medicine, academia and technology.
So, there is LOTS of blacks in charge of the institutions that were historically claimed to be seats of racial suppression.
tracycoyle
Level 8
Dec 17, 2020
11
@TheMiddleWay Percentages mean nothing, for example, we've had no women Presidents despite women being 51% of the population.
When you get to the top of any career, or industry, you have to understand the decades that took to get there. And the foundations necessary to help build a career. Pelosi has been at the top of the Democrat party for years and decades as part of the leadership - though never ran for President. Blacks have represented Republican districts for more than 100 years, not so much Democrat ones.
Just because a group has existed doesn't mean that it should be perfectly, or even close, to being represented in a group. I'd wager that blacks do not equal 13% of doctors....here, let me check...
....why 5%. I wonder why? Maybe because education is FROWNED upon in the black community?
The percentage of any group relative to their population size is not a good indicator of 'sufficient diversity' when many other factors go into the makeup of a group....
@TheMiddleWay Oh, I don't know. I know there is more flour than eggs in a bread recipe - doesn't mean I should add more eggs, or take away flour. You do understand the physical density of the specific fruits has an impact on the fruit salad? Too many apples to bananas results in a 'harder' salad than the reverse?
Relative merit, relative interest, relative innate skills can all have an impact on relative diversity, depends on the issue.
I live in a senior complex with 91 others - it is 70% female and 30% black. Both higher percentages than the surrounding community. There are NO women that are interested in politics. None of the blacks are engaged (I asked about a dozen the names of our Senators or Congresswoman, none knew. I asked them to name the Presidents of their adult lives, none could. Granted such questions might be too simplistic, but then they all voted for Biden so I asked them to name a position Biden had - this was over the summer into the fall. None could except a general - he cares more and is smarter.)
I will take Baltimore as an example:
Black or African American: 62.46%
White: 30.45%Of Baltimore City’s 39 High Schools, 13 had zero students proficient in math.
Digging further, we found another six high schools where one percent tested proficient.
Those numbers were from 2017, but a report for 2019/20 indicated that the overall percentage of 14% for the high schools was up to 17%.
I have argued for years that the number one indicator for student success was: parental involvement regards of school performance. I stand by that argument.
I AM making a broad generalization about black commitment to education - I don't see it in the overall community. In some parts, yes, but not overall. BTW, I would point you to the Dalton School issue currently going on in NYC.
Disparity in population is not evidence of inequality. It MIGHT be. It is simplistic to suggest economic issues are driving the disparity. I used the refugees from SE Asia in the 70s into the 80s as my example: they lacked knowledge of the language, they were generally from uneducated/unskilled populations, they were placed into poor communities with marginal schools yet by the first generation they dominated high school achievement in their communities and the State of California. Education was paramount to the families. I made similar arguments about the black communities in Chicago that surrounded the University of Illinois at Chicago, where I was a student in the late 80s. I was raised on the Southside of Chicago, attended city public schools.
Nearly all of under- and low-performing Chicago high schools are on the South Side and sit in or border the city’s poorest census tracts [the black neighborhoods]
There are examples of blacks succeeding despite having come from low income/poverty level families in cities.
Last point - I am NOT interested in diversity for diversity's sake. I don't believe it has any impact on the quality of an organization. I am the first generation of immigrant parents and fully support LEGAL immigration as beneficial to our Nation (skimming the cream of the crop of other countries might not be good for those other countries, but great for us!).
@TheMiddleWay >I would hardly consider 0.5% of our presidents or 2% of our current governors (for example) as being black as a metric by which to claim we've surpassed racial suppression
Good point. Which makes me wonder why Jews are constantly pressing the narrative that they're oppressed when they're arguably the most over-represented ethnic group in high-prestige, high-earning, -high-power fields such as politics, finance, media, medicine, science, and law.
Why is that? Isn't the fact Jews represent 2% of the US population but 6% of Congress, 8% of the Senate, 15% of the cabinet, and 22% of the Supreme Court an indicator that antisemitism is practically non-existent?
[jta.org]
@TheMiddleWay At what point does anecdotal become data?
Like studies showing women make less than men, the devil is in the details. Diversity doesn't, by itself, change the dynamics of an organization...
@TheMiddleWay I accept that diversity matters in a corporation - and can lead to more profitability, less so at the board and customer facing positions - where innovation drives profitability. More diverse thinking in innovation is highly desirable. As an econ major with heavy stats background, I understand the problem with studies (similar to our discussion on modeling) - but don't discount the effort made to quantify human behavior....
@tracycoyle "....why 5%. I wonder why? Maybe because education is FROWNED upon in the black community?"
Exactly. Black people used to even joke about that very issue before it wasn't PC to joke about that stuff, or to point out their own failings. But that is not White People's fault, and I'm tired of being blamed for their issues.
If education is frowned upon in the black community, how does that make me racist if I don't want my kids to go to school with other kids whose goal is to NOT learn, or not hire a black person who is uneducated or unqualified? Lower our standards? Really?
If this were a group of white people we were talking about it would not even be a topic of conversation. It's obvious you shouldn't send your kids to school with problem kids, your kids won't learn. It's obvious you don't hire someone not qualified for the job.
I'm not going to sacrifice myself or my kids just to look PC or to make black people feel better about being where they are. I will continue to live up to the standards that we've created and the standards that have built a Nation, or I should say, the standards that have built the entire 1st world.
Institutionalized racism is a farce!
It is a way to pretend a of people have guilt because of their race. And that view is blatantly racist.
It really does come down to the definition ... or people arbitrarily and selectively changing definitions in order to fit any given circumstance and bend it to fit their "argument" when reality is not on their side.
Apparently institutionalised racism is simple a fallacy.
Only Democrats and Progressives believe in it to support their wacky opinions.
@JacksonNought I'll pose the same question to you that I did to @WilyRickWiles
If institutionalized racism exists, why are Asians and Jews more successful than Whites, in majority-White countries, if #WhiteSupremacy is an institution in such countries? Are Asians and Jews simply better at defeating White Supremacist policies? How can we teach disadvantaged groups how to defeat White Supremacy like Asians and Jews do? Or is White Supremacy just a really ineffective policy?
Do you have any concerns about Asian Supremacy?
@ZuzecaSape Jews are white.
@JacksonNought We disagree on that. I used to believe Jews were White, until Jews started saying they weren't White because being White no longer conferred the privileges it used to. You of all people should know there's a healthy debate in the Jewish community about whether Jews are White.
However, you and another Jew I know claim Jews are White. That's fine with me. Jews can call themselves anything they want. I side with the Jews who say they aren't White.
[forward.com]
@ZuzecaSape as a Jew, I identify as White. When there is an ethnicity section on a form, there is no "Jew" box to check. I've never come across a Jew (at least an American born Jew) who doesn't identify as White - just anti-Semites who call Jews non-White in order to "other" them and keep their racial purity / white supremacy free of Jews. Not accusing you of that, just saying that has been my experience. And even if Jews don't consider themselves White in a technical capacity, they are still "White-passing" meaning they will be perceived as White and given similar privilege. Obama is technically White, as he is half, yet his whole life he has been perceived as purely Black. I have a friend who is mostly Italian, with some Native American ancestry, but he looks like he is Black and is perceived as such. Institutionalized racism isn't always strictly genetics - it is also how you are perceived.
I ask you to watch these videos to see how Institutionalized Racism, even if not in in the letter of the law today, still causes impacts today.
Even our current president has been part of a lawsuit in the 70's for taking measures to prevent renting to Black people.
@JacksonNought If there were a "Hebrew" box on the census, would you check it?
>>I've never come across a Jew (at least an American born Jew) who doesn't identify as White
I have, but not personally. I had a Jewish acquaintance I once asked point-blank if Judaism was a race or a religion and he said, "Both." (he was orthodox, if that matters). Since then I've come to understand #Judaism as an "ethno-religion".
My beef with Jews calling themselves White is rooted in the #MyFellowWhitePeople meme, in which Jews admonish Whites - as "fellow white people" to do something that is arguably disadvantageous to Whites, then are later found to disavow their previously professed White identity. If you want to identify as White, be my guest, but backing out of that identity when it's inconvenient - saying, "Oh, I'm not White! I'm Jewish!" - is disingenuous at the very least, especially if one has used that "white" identity to cut down their "fellow" Whites.
I'll watch the videos.
@ZuzecaSape yes, Judaism is both a religion and an ethnicity. Anyone can practice the religion of Judaism, just as anyone can practice Christianity. Anyone can even be culturally Jewish - if your parents convert before you are born, you are technically considered a Jew through heritage, just as being adopted by Italian parents can make you raised with Italian culture, regardless of your actual bloodline. And then Judaism, or "Hebrew" is an actual ethnicity with unique genetic markers. I am one of the whitest people you can come across, but my DNA test came back 100% Ashkenazi Jew.
There could be Jews considered non-White, depending on other factors and darker skin tones (perhaps Jews currently born in Israel even), but most I would still consider White or at least White-passing. I would disagree with people like the one you posted saying they are not White... though I understand his context - it was mostly White Christian Anglo-Saxons who came to America and stole the land from Native Americans, whereas many Jewish Europeans came after while fleeing persecution. Though he is still White.
Perhaps it is a problem of being lumped in completely with all White people, as White Jews are considered a minority which faces oppression compared to White Christians, especially in America and Europe with anti-Semitism, but that does not change the fact that they are still White.
@JacksonNought I'll have to do some deeper investigation into #redlining. I have a hunch the video is glossing over details to push a narrative. For instance, ostensibly redlining was a means of determining the level of security for real-estate investments. Given POC were likely the lowest wage earners, it serves to reason areas predominated by POC would be redlined as these were the lowest income and most likely to default. 1:55 says people in redlined districts weren't any more likely to default, but maybe they didn't default because lenders were extra careful about lending to only the best candidates in redlined areas. When Freddie Mac started lending willy-nilly, it resulted in the subprime mortgage crisis. Maybe people in redlined districts didn't get loans because they couldn't afford homes. Also, it doesn't seem like ending this practice did much to improve the situation. Segregation is still rampant and formerly redlined districts still impoverished.
I'm just spitballing because the video isn't intended to answer questions like these as much as it's intended to push a narrative.
[en.wikipedia.org]
As for the second video, why is desegregation the goal? I think originally it was thought that the reason POC weren't achieving as much as Whites was because they didn't have access to the same schools and resources Whites did in racially segregated neighborhoods. So we forced integration and what changed? Not much. Many immigrants lived in and preferred ethnic enclaves where there was safety and community. It should come as no surprise that Blacks congregated together in cities during the Great Migration to facilitate safety and build a unique identity. I would argue that actually worked. Black-only universities, schools, and communities were means of building themselves up. Money stayed in the community. Wealth was generated. Then well-meaning (?) outsiders pushed integration. Some ethnicities (e.g., Asians) did really well. The Black community, however, fell flat on its face. People complain about #WhiteFlight, but I would argue #BlackFlight - enabled by desegregation - drew more money out of the Black community than anything else. Affluent Blacks moved to White neighborhoods and the money that circulated in the community during segregation vanished.
So, I guess you could say I have my doubts about the narrative being pushed in those videos. If people want to integrate, let them; but if they want to remain separate, allow that as well. Neither should be forced.
@adriaan23 No, it's exactly not about individual guilt. It is about a system that works in a discriminatory manner.