I wasn't planning to write this, but it came about spontaneously when I one of my Facebook contacts shared this video with the message "if you still believe it is possible to be 'racist' to white people, you need to watch this if you haven't already". The text itself, which I disagree with, is what caught my attention, so I watched the video (it's less than two minutes, if you're interested), but still remained unconvinced about White people not being able to be victims of racism - not that I'm trying to achieve the opposite, of course. So a couple of exchanges (polite and civil, of course!) and an article for me to read later, I ended up writing a pretty lengthy comment - as is typical of me... - that I thought I might as well post here in case anybody else is interested. So my main point is that I think anybody can be a victim of racism, sadly, including "White people". Note: this discussion seems to be ongoing, but here's where it's at so far...:
[Initial post]: if you still believe it is possible to be 'racist' to white people, you need to watch this if you haven't already [video]
[My comment]: ...but you can be racist to White people, or people of any race...regardless of their privilege, background, or anything else other than race =/
[My reply]: [Greetings and pleasantries, too :)]I think this is going to be a debate of semantics, as I'd say racism is 'simply' defined as "discrimination based upon prejudice against a race". Going with the principles of your definition, that'd extend to sexism against males in today's (and previous) societies also not being possible - if you agree with that then fairdos, but I'm of the opinion that sexism against males is possible. I don't think racism has a 'direction' either (in terms of "reverse racism") - again, this goes from my definition of it, so perhaps this is the semantics aspect.I've gone through the article you linked, and think it's arguments are very flawed, frankly. Going through the seven reasons they give:Reason 1) Invalid point imo because...I wouldn't even say this is semantics, since the author uses a definition of racism that shifts the definition/'requirements' of racism to automatically exclude those without some form of privilege. The article they link to to for this definition states the following, "By definition, Blacks and other minorities cannot be racist because they do not have insitutional, systemic power.", so that argument is circular - "Non-privileged people can't be racist because we define racism as something only privileged people can do." - and thus doesn't hold.R2) Invalid point imo because..."Anger is a legitimate response to oppression." - appeal to emotion maybe? And this may be very subjective reason anyway. As somebody who faces a lot of prejudice and varying degrees of "oppression" on a regular basis, I get pretty upset and angry, and it's *understandable* for me to react in the same way, but that certainly doesn't make it justifiable. Anger is never a legitimate response to anything; it's an understandable response to many things, but that in no way justifies/legitimises it =/If we're angry about something, yeah, acknowledge it and then try to do something constructive about it if possible - it's not a justification to [probably inaccurately] characterise an entire race by the actions of some of 'that race' and attribute/apply those characteristics to some other members of 'that race'.R3) This one I have mixed feelings about, as it depends on how equality is implemented - to really remove bias, or at least minimise it, anonymous job applications and blind interviews would be the way forward (but I understand this may be logistically difficult). There are other methods being implemented, such as affirmative action/positive discrimination or quota systems, and these have their pros and cons, which I won't go into, hence why I think this reason *could* be valid.
R4) Again, this is an iffy one that I have mixed feelings about. Sure, I can see these things as temporary solutions until a time where we may not bother by grouping people by various cross-sections of society (be it race, religion, gender, sexuality, etc.), but, in fairness, if people of one race (or some other cross-section) want to have their own 'space' or club, why can't the others? This may become circular, though, since it could be argued "because these people were oppressed and so need their own space", and then the privileges those people are afforded in their own space/club may in turn lead to a form of "oppression" for those others that are not provided such a space/club, and so it's circular in that it goes back to the definition of racism the author invokes/constructs. (I probably didn't explain this point as clearly as I'd meant, sorry, but I can't seem to find the words right now =/)
R5) Invalid point imo because...so the reason itself may be *generally* true (in Western Society), but it's not relevant to the discussion if using the definition of racism I use, but it is relevant if using the definition used in the article itself, and since that'd be the definition to maintain some form of self-consistency, let's do it. However, that then brings up R1 which doesn't hold itself, so this argument falls apart.
R6) Invalid point imo because...again, this invokes R1, so falls apart. Racism and prejudice aren't the same thing - agreed. I'd argue racism is, as I said earlier, "discrimination based upon prejudice against a race". In the article they state the following, "A joke about white people dancing has no impact on the lives of average white people, whereas jokes about black people and reinforcing stereotypes about black people do have an impact on the lives of everyday black people." which is an unfair comparison. They compare "a joke about dancing...[and] average White people" with "general jokes...and reinforcing stereotypes about Black people ...[and] everyday Black people". That said, the jokes I usually here about White people dancing are to say that they can't dance, and imply that Black people can i.e. that Black people are superior at dancing.
R7) Invalid point imo because...Agreed, hard truths aren't racist (since they're implicitly based on evidence, in this context). Yet this reason has no relevance on the author's claim that "reverse racism" doesn't exist; it seems they're only using it to try to give some credibility to the rest of their argument.
Now, having said all of this, just because the article is poorly argued, doesn't make the claim that "reverse racism doesn't exist" wrong itself, so I'm open to other arguments being put forward to make the case for it. That said, I imagine it'd come back to semantics, but I really don't think I could agree with the definition the article uses since it seems that definition is constructed to deliberately exclude "minority races" from being able to be racist (not that I'm trying to promote/encourage racism, of course).
Consider the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Let's say a White person from the UK campaigned strongly against the wars/invasions and did everything they morally/ethically/legally could to prevent it, but it still goes ahead. Fast forward to after the wars/invasions, where many of the civilians are in desperate need of aid in various forms, and at least some of them are, understandably, very angry at all the civilian casualties and destruction they've faced by the people supposedly "liberating" them, who were mostly White soldiers. Said White person (who campaigned strongly against the wars/invasions because of said reasons) goes to these countries to try to help them out in any way possible, not just out of their own willingness to help those in need out, but also because they feel partially responsible for what the army of their country did (even though they did everything in their power to prevent that from happening, so they can't be legitimately held responsible for it). A bunch of these angry civilians see this White person standing in the streets, blame them for civilian casualties and destruction they've witnessed as a consequence of the wars/invasions, and then murder that White person out of their anger, solely because they're White - is that not racist?
Note: The reason I've written so much and explicitly gone through what I consider to be the flaws in the article you linked and your claim in general isn't out of some desire to prove you wrong or something (I imagine you know me that much enough, but felt obliged to say it for those who don't know me to that extent, at least). I did it because I think your claim can potentially lead to many dangerous situations (i.e. minorities carrying out hate-crimes against majorities because they feel it's not racist and that they're anger-born actions are legitimised) and so felt heavily obliged to provide why I thought it's an invalid claim.
[OP's reply]: [Greetings], I've had a read of what you said, and because of your approach, and the definition you are using, that sets the basis of your arguments. If you use the dictionary definition, which lets be honest, is not going to be a thorough analysis of race and racism, then you will naturally come with the arguments you have made above. The entire point of this is to include privilege in the conversation. So yes, I 100% believe it is impossible for men to be sexist. The nuances of power dynamics and privilege are crucial here, without them you use a very simple definition to reduce gender and racial issues to something which they aren't.
This video again sums this up, ironically, quite simply. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eTWZ80z9EE
If you still have qualms after seeing this Ridwan, I'll try and respond to the points you made above, which all stem from the same understanding.
[My reply]: If that's the case, then I think it important to distinguish it from "racism" itself, whether it be called "privileged racism" or something else that conveys the definition of the above video/article that includes privilege, since I'd say that's a subset of racism, then...though yah, I imagine we've reached a conclusion on the matter. Do you mind if I share this discussion on my blog (but without names)?
[OP's reply]: With respect, I think that such a distinction is unfair, by ignoring institutional racism, colonial history, slavery etc. If we ignore those things, we will never begin to correct the mammoth that is racism. All it will do is make space for white people to claim that they are victims of racism too, which is an obfuscation the fight against racism does not need. It requires a definition that treats it as what it is, a complex social phenomenon. using a simplistic dictionary definition wont do any good whatsoever.
Sure, I don't mind you sharing it at all.
[My reply]: I'd argue that the distinction doesn't ignore any of that at all, rather it acknowledges all of that under what I'd consider a more appropriate/accurate definition/label. So there's the phenomenon of racism, which encompasses all the [sadly] many forms of it, and a big portion of that is "privilege-based racism". That doesn't downplay it at all, but doesn't go the other way of ignoring/dismissing all other forms of it, either. We need to be balanced in our views, I think - like I said, I don't mean downplaying somethings and overplaying other things, just keeping it all in consideration and perspective.
(Ah, just saw your edit to an earlier comment, so will have a watch of the video.)
So the video itself is giving me issues in a similar way to the article, in terms of flawed arguments...to have a discussion about racism (or anything) you need to agree on definitions, which goes back to this being about semantics. The car analogy doesn't work because one question is "What is racism?" and the other is "How do I fix my car?", not "What is a car?" (straw-man argument). Sure, I imagine that she's trying to get at the notion that to have an in-depth discussion about something you need to consult more than a dictionary definition, but you still need to have some definition in the first place...which is what makes our discussion pretty much a semantics thing in the first place. Seriously, the whole thing seems to be constructing a definition whereby White people can never be the victims of racial prejudice (which she states is a thing, but then says that's not racism because of the definition she/they invoke rather than its actual objective definition). Frankly, it seems like logic is being thrown out the window - to discuss something coherently, you need an objective definition of that thing, whereas here the objective definition of that thing is being disregarded. So the discussion this has become (not our discussion itself, but the discussion we're discussing :P) is more "How should we define racism?", in which case, what would you describe "racial prejudice" without "institutional privilege and power"? It seems arbitrary and impractical to say racism is "racial prejudice + institutional privilege and power" and not have a term for "racial prejudice" itself. Don't get me wrong, I very much understand (and can relate) to the idea that White people *in general* are much more advantaged than non-White people in our society (just like males are much more advantaged than non-males), but to then go on and say racism/sexism can't be against White/male people is also a form of discrimination that could be taken to legitimise such acts against them.
I still don't get why the idea of racism being a general thing that describes all forms of race-based prejudice and discrimination, and then "privileged racism" being a [large] subset of that, seems to be a problem =/
[OP's reply]: Hey Ridwan - again you are coming to those conclusions because you are using the dictionary definition, as opposed to one based in sociology, and this is a social problem. The car analogy may not work because it is not perfect, but as you said, you understand what she's trying to get at. So why not accept what you understand she's trying to do. If you need a definition in the first place, she and I gave you one. One that includes the roots of modern racism (which is white supremacy), includes lived experience of non-white people, and that important caveat, privilege.
I think one of the issues here is that if I remember correctly you are a physicist, so the way in which you approach this is problematic - it is an issue of the social sciences and from what I have seen you say, regarding objectivity, subsets etc you end up ignoring the nuance of the roots of racism, and what it actually is, prejudice backed by institutional and structural power. It is not a neat mathematical problem where once you define it 'objectively', create a neat subset which puts everyone on a level playing field (which does not exist), you can come to a solution - this is something altogether different. The actual definition deserves to be reflective of what racism totally is. To put it in your terms, the subset you created is so large, it renders whats left statistically insignificant ;)
in response to your last point, the reason why it is a problem, is because it creates a false, level playing field, thereby ignoring society and erasing centuries of history.
The answer to why the idea of racism being a general thing is a problem is because its not a general thing, and that's what the initial video tries to get at. And does it very well.
One of the problems with people understanding this, and its usually white people, is that it forces them to acknowledge privilege and can give them feelings of guilt. so when some white people make similar arguments to you, it is a way of them absolving themselves of a form of guilt because ''i can be a victim of racism too". It conveniently, through false notions of objectivity and equality allows them to erase history and lived experience. Which is exactly is whats happening if you ignore the privilege element of racism.
[My reply]: That's the whole problem I think we're having here, though - the definition of racism. All I'm saying is that there are many forms of racism, including this structural/institutional/privileged one that seems to be the only form of racism you acknowledge, whereas I think there are other forms such as individual racism, too. Does this create a false, level playing-field? No, not at all, and I think you've assumed incorrectly that that's how I see it =/ An attempt at my own analogy here: a patient goes to see the doctor and it turns out they have cancer (SIP racism) as well as some insect bite (individual racism) on their finger or something has caused a minor rash. The cancer is clearly the main problem that needs to be tackled that's having an effect on the whole body and, *comparatively speaking*, the bite is insignificant, but it's still a problem that needs to be acknowledged and treated if possible. I'm not saying the bite is as much a problem as the cancer, nor am I saying the bite needs to be treated before the cancer, just that it's still a problem and should be acknowledged as such.
Sure, regarding your last paragraph, I get it and agree with it, too, (because you acknowledge it's "some" and not "all"), though I think you're arguing something else because I'm not saying to ignore the privilege element of racism =/
As I've said before, to have a coherent discussion, you need to have a common set of definitions i.e. objective, (rather than subjective) definitions, as otherwise you'd (to borrow from a comment on my own Wall about this) be arguing cross-purposes.
Also, I feel slightly obliged to point out that I take issue with your view that because of my academic discipline/background, I'm only able to view/approach it in a certain way, as that seems pretty prejudiced in itself (but not racially ;) ) - and if that were true of people, then there's no point in anybody other than social scientists discussing and trying to solve the problem of racism, because nobody else would have a valid approach according to your view (if I've interpreted correctly) =/ You mention again a level playing-field being formed, but that's not what I'm saying/doing, nor am I ignoring any part of racism, just to make it clear - please take my arguments as they are and not infer things/try to fill in the gaps, because so far you keep seeming to misunderstand I'm saying. If you're unsure about what I'm saying, please feel free to ask and I'll try my best to clarify. Admittedly, I think the whole conclusion of what I'm trying to say is (copied from the discussion on my own Wall):
So, I guess my overall conclusion is that racism has many forms and can be towards any race, be they "in power" or not, on individual and society-wide scales, and that there are different terms to describe the different forms, i.e. SIP racism and individual racism.
[OP's reply]: You're right in that the problem we are having is the definitions we are using. I would argue that sociologists have already defined racism - as prejudice+power. Without the power, its just prejudice, which no-one is arguing doesn't exist for white people, its racism that doesn't. You've made up this 'SIP racism' and 'individual racism' when there isnt any need to be honest. Racism IS 'SIP' and anything else is just an individual act of prejudice. So the definitions of this social phenomenon already exist as the above, and if we use them, we would come to the same conclusions.
To put it using your analogy, an insect bite is not cancer, its an insect bite. I'm not saying you intended to ignore privilege, colonialism and slavery, but inadvertently that is what occurs when you say that white people can suffer racism. It, whether you intended to or not, creates a level playing field that erases the reality of non white people. Again, these are social problems and must be treated as such. 'Acknowledging' an individual act of prejudice against a white person as racism, does, whether one intends to or not, downplay the lived experience of non white people who actually suffer through life chances, educational attainment, employment etc all due to racism.
We are gonna hit an impasse if you continue to use the dictionary definition, and we'll end up both rehashing old arguments and thinking of new analogies. To me it is very simple, the definition of racism, in its totality, its history, its reality is already present, and individual acts of prejudice are also defined as such too. Part of undoing the affects of racism, is for people to understand its history and its reality, and the first step would be to acknowledge what it is, as a historical, social phenomenon. As an analogy if you imagine a white slave master, snatching a human from his home, robbing them of their name, religion, family, humanity and everything else, and then brutalising them. Now imagine the slave freeing themselves and saying something like 'horrible white people' - according to your definition that's racist. I would argue its preposterous to call that racism because it erases everything apart from that one moment.
Apologies if I came across as having a go at you for being a physicist, that wasn't my intention. I was just guessing as to why you might approach this in this way, and emphasise that a huge sociological phenomenon should be looked at sociologically. Sorry for the confusion. I'm not doubting your sincerity at all.p.s I hope your ramadan is going well.
[My reply]: I really think we're going to have agree to disagree since it seems we're strongly set in our definitions of "racism" =/ and will just keep going in circles. If you haven't already, you may be interested in the discussion that took place on my Wall about the whole thing (and it seems inconclusive there, too), though not saying you have to, of course.
Though yah, not meant to be having a go at you, either - some of your arguments, yes, but certainly not you! Jazak Allahu khaire for the consideration, and apologies if I came across in an untoward manner =/ Hope your Ramadan is going well, and Eid Mubarak for Tuesday/Wednesday, insha Allah!
[OP's reply]: you didnt come across untoward at all. P.s. as a request could you add the whole thread to your blog? Just for completions sake.
Hamdulillah ramadan has been good. Hope the same for you. Eid mubarak!
Salams
[My reply]: Sure, insha Allah! Sorry for the late reply; long day =/